From the Dr of Love herself…
QT: I always read studies, which of course you can’t take too seriously, but there are studies saying gays are more inclined to be drug addicts or are more inclined to have risky sex. Obviously there are social factors to be taken into account, but is there any study of dopamine or any other chemical like that in gay people?
HF: I have no idea. For example, you don’t find the risky sex in gay women, but I think that may be a very different biological system. We hear about all the gays that are copulating under the pier in Province Town, but we don’t hear about all the gays who are settled down. We don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the huge number of swingers and polyamory people and adultery in the straight population. I’ve always felt that gays are just like straights. Who you fall in love with, that would differ, but how you feel when you fall in love – that would be similar. I did a basic study and didn’t find that my gay population chose their mates any differently than the straights. In other words, a high dopamine type is probably going to go for another high dopamine type whether they’re gay or whether they’re straight.
QT: Do you think that’s an evolutionary development to find one other person?
HF: No. I think that’s human. 97% of animals do not pair up to rear their young. Only 3% do. We do. Even 3 million years ago, our ancestors were forming pair bonds. Now, they weren’t marrying, because that’s a cortical, conscious ritual, but they were forming pair bonds to rear their babies as a group. We’ve evolved this brain system for attachment. I think that gays have it, too. About a month ago, when there was a lot of publicity, I called our CEO and said, “Let’s pull our gay people and look at who they choose”. So that I can say to the press, “The gays choose exactly the same as the straights do”.
You can find the full interview with Queerty here.
When I posted Intelligent Design aka Christian Chauvinism, I expected to be slammed by Christians, not pseudo-scientists [who quote from books, but don't make a point]. I am no scientist. My belief in Evolution is in same class as my belief in Big Bang, the existence of extra-terrestrial life, and Global Warming. All are so-far unproven theories, but with overwhelming scientific evidence, or simply rational thought [in the case of extra-terrestrial life] pointing to it. And of course, I don’t ignore that there is evidence pointing the other way too – but isn’t that the great thing about science?
It is not my job to research any of these theories I believe in – that’s for other people to do. Neither is it my job to convince other people of it – again, that’s for scientists to do. My belief rests not on blind faith, but well-reasoned logic in looking at both sides, and coming to a conclusion on which side I consider to have more merit. If tomorrow a respected scientist comes up with a paper that has absolutely (ideally) undeniable evidence that permanently debunks any of these theories, then the said belief will be destroyed without further notice. I put faith in evidence and proof, not rhetoric [which is what the proponents of ID rely on. All I've ever heard them say is "Look at all the things around us! There is no way this was a product of chance!"]
When I posted that entry, I was genuinely outraged not because I felt my scientific belief system was under attack, but because of the political ramifications of the said event taking place at a respected university. I consider it an embarrassment and an affront to have a speaker [rev Dr Dave Geisler] whose qualification is not even a basic degree in science, but a Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary try and discredit Evolution as valid science.
Really – what is at stake here is not science, but politics. Politics of science, maybe, but politics nonetheless. What is under siege is not the theory of evolution, but the secular values society is built on.
Otherwise, really… I don’t give a damn about whether you believe the world was created by a mushroom.
I have been seeing this poster around the campus lately: it is advertising this talk on “Intelligent Design”, or rather as it says, “Christian Perspective of Evolution”. It purports to explain away Evolution as a scientific theory, replacing it with the only thing that could possibly make sense… Intelligent Design.
It makes me really ashamed to have such an event on campus, really. Intelligent Design is not science. It is at the best, a pseudo-science. The only things backing up Intelligent Design are speculations, theological arguments and “Evolution doesn’t cut it” logic.
Intelligent Design is essentially Genesis repackaged – it is an extremely Christian ideology, and only Christians have been fighting to teach this theory to our kids. They still can’t seem to accept that we have descended from monkeys, it seems. I know there are Christian readers of this blog, and you probably do believe in Genesis – which is your choice. But why are your people trying to force this theology down the throats of everyone, even non-Christians? If you don’t believe in Evolution, then take it to the church. Let the priests talk all they want about how the Lord made the world in 6 days. Stop trying to masquerade it as a credible scientific theory.
What is ironic is that in the poster, the learned speaker is trying to convince us that Evolution is simply a scientific postulation, and does not have enough evidence to back it up. If that is the case, Intelligent Design has much less proof than Evolution. It may or may not be true – I personally believe in evolution, but I do acknowledge it is not completely scientifically proven. But it is the most credible, most well-researched one around. The fact that we can’t conclusively prove Evolution is an indicator of our own short lifespans, not the invalidity of the theory. We haven’t been here long enough, been researching this long enough to prove it either way – but it makes sense. The only reason people have been systematically opposing this has nothing to do with science – and has got everything to do with religion.
I am not going to bother systematically rebutting Intelligent Design as a theory, because that’s for more informed people to do. But I have this to say – if you insist that evolution and intelligent design be taught side by side, I insist that you teach every other genesis-like theory in the world as well, from every religion. I am not the only to come to this conclusion, as the satirical The Flying Spaghetti Monster was formulated on similar grounds.
I’ve really had enough of Christian chauvinism. For a change, do consider people from other faiths.