Re: a few responses lumped together (Jim and Burgy take note)

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 09:41:16 EST

  • Next message: allenroy: "Re: YEC and interpretations (was: Re: asa-digest V1 #3214)"

    RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
    >
    > In a message dated 3/22/03 11:37:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
    > burgythree@hotmail.com writes:
    >
    > > Would it not have been more in the spirit of scientific honesty, Moorad, to
    > > have pointed out (1) that the word "homosexuals" means an orientation, not
    > > an activity and that the translation above is challenged by many biblical
    > > scholars?
    > >
    > >
    >
    > If by orientation, you mean genetic orientation, would you kindly provide
    > evidence for that. If not, then what is "scientifically honest" or dishonest?
    > You read Lamm's religious argument. Is the brother of the president of
    > Yeshiva University not a Biblical scholar? I''m sure that learned family
    > would disagree with you. What is the alternate translation of which you speak?
    > rich
    >
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    > In a message dated 3/22/03 11:37:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
    > burgythree@hotmail.com writes:
    >
    > Would it not have been more in the spirit of scientific
    > honesty, Moorad, to
    > have pointed out (1) that the word "homosexuals" means an
    > orientation, not
    > an activity and that the translation above is challenged by
    > many biblical
    > scholars?
    >
    > If by orientation, you mean genetic orientation, would you kindly
    > provide evidence for that. If not, then what is "scientifically
    > honest" or dishonest? You read Lamm's religious argument. Is the
    > brother of the president of Yeshiva University not a Biblical scholar?
    > I''m sure that learned family would disagree with you. What is the
    > alternate translation of which you speak?

            The evidence for homosexual orientation which is strictly "genetic," in the
    sense of being encoded in DNA, is weak to non-existent. The evidence for such
    orientation formed at a very early age, while anecdotal, is stronger though not
    logically compelling. It is possible for some conditions to be developed before birth,
    & in that sense be "inherited," without being strictly "genetic" - e.g., fetal alcohol
    syndrome.
            The professional position of someone's brother is irrelevant to the question of
    that person's expertise - otherwise I would be a forensic pathologist.
            I don't say this to argue for acceptance of homosexuality: Burgy will testify
    that I am considerably more hesitant than he in that regard. But the signal to noise
    ratio on this issue in general is so low that it behoves us - whatever our views on it -
    to do what we can to improve that situation.

                                                    Shalom,
                                                    George
                                                                 

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 09:41:47 EST