Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The Pretense of Science

Paul Jamieson brought up the pseudoscience of Warren Throckmorton, and lo and behold, not ten minutes passed and I find the incomparable Ed Brayton is right on it.

Just like creationists who cover their religious views with a thin veneer of science, the same thing goes on in fields like psychology and especially in areas like ex-gay therapy. Warren Throckmorton is Professor of Psychology and Director of the College Counseling Service at Grove City College, a Christian university in Pennsylvania. He is an advocate of ex-gay therapy, but he's got more credibility than most who advocate that. He's been quite critical of many of the ridiculous reversion theories out there. He's also been a harsh critic of the pseudoscience of Paul Cameron. He tends to approach things in a more scholarly manner than your average ex-gay advocate. But when push comes to shove he makes clear, as the creationists do, where his loyalties truly lie. A blogger at Pam's House Blend links to an article in Christianity Today where Throckmorton is quoted:

"Transgender impulses are strong, but they don't match up with the Christian sexual ethic," says Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. "Desires must be brought into alignment with biblical teachings, but it will be inconvenient and distressful."

Throckmorton, past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association, says he has advised transgendered people who are in absolute agony over their state. Typically, such individuals are desperately in search of hope and acceptance, he says. It may be uncomfortable to tell transgendered individuals that their desires don't align with the Bible, Throckmorton says, but pastors must do so. "Even if science does determine differentiation in the brain at birth," Throckmorton says, "even if there are prenatal influences, we can't set aside teachings of the Bible because of research findings."

So, when push comes to shove, Mr. Throckmorton is full aware that all his pseudo-scientific language is just sophistry.

His bottom line is his bizarre interpretation of Christian ethics.

Read Mr. Brayton's and Pam Spaulding's take on it. They say it better than I could.

.

13 comments:

Paul Jamieson said...

Actually - John brought it up - but I know you like to slander people with untruths

Here we go again

Here are 20 -30 articles you can spend some time refuting as well

http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

and of course you will dismiss Narth

John said...

I brought the simple indisputable fact that sexual orientation is not a choice.

No serious person believes that it is.

You brought up Throckmorton.

Of course I dismiss NARTH out of hand. Their research is demonstrably false.

Jerry Maneker said...

"Even if science does determine differentiation in the brain at birth," Throckmorton says, "even if there are prenatal influences, we can't set aside teachings of the Bible because of research findings."

It's statements like these, and a mind-set that would even suggest that facts of the matter are irrelevant compared to a mere fallible person's interpretation of sections of the Bible, that make Christians look like a pack of freaks! And every Christian who is a Christian indeed should deeply resent such statements as they besmirch Christians, Christianity, and God Himself!

Paul Jamieson said...

so why does the American, no the global Scientific community disagree with you John?

I guess they aren't "serious"

There is no proof to your claim.

And Mr Maneker, exuse me, but your Christianity is not my Christianity

And what makes your brand of Christianity better or truer than mine?

You guys can keep trying but please don't be alarmed when we fight back.

Why can you fight and not us?

John said...

The Global Scientific Community does not believe that sexual orientation is a choice.

A few cranks do, sure, but there are a few cranks that deny heliocentrism.

That sexual orientation is not a choice is simply beyond obvious.

No more proof is needed beyond observation.

Paul Jamieson said...

answer the question John

Why then does the Global scientific community not agree with you?

Do you know anything about the scientific method and proof?

John said...

The Global Scientific community agrees with me that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Paul Jamieson said...

well you are wrong - I will produce evidence shortly

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"Even if science does determine differentiation in the brain at birth," Throckmorton says, "even if there are prenatal influences, we can't set aside teachings of the Bible because of research findings."

This statement sounds a lot like someone who knows the truth and just does not want to accept it.

Paul, while you are looking for evidence please review the website borndifferent.org.

Here's something else to consider:

Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", the "father of science", and “the Father of Modern Science.

Yet Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's opposition to this view resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, because that theory had no decisive proof and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture. Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.

There are many instances of the Church intereferring with the world of science. We now know that the Church was wrong in this and other instances.

Why should people who are speaking against scientific findings be believed with the strong influence of the Church behind them?

Paul Jamieson said...

Because the Church is usually right

Has been for ages

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Paul, how do you know when authority is wrong if you don't constantly question it?

Paul Jamieson said...

why do you constantly question it?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

The answer is simple; we need to constantly question in order to get the best results.

Whenever people work together on something they need to brainstorm and bear in mind all input.

In constantly questioning myself I sharpen my arguments so that my points are more easily understood.

This concept is one of the reasons I value your input so much even though we disagree a lot.