Re: Fly Gene

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Sat Jun 04 2005 - 23:55:22 EDT

Right on! I actually wrote and then deleted a statement to the effect of
the first sentence in your second paragraph. I deleted it because I too
realized I could not make the case to everyone's satisfaction. But at
the end of the day, I think you and I lean in somewhat opposite
directions on these matters. JimA

Terry M. Gray wrote:

>> In case you missed it, here's a potentially explosive headline, from
>> yesterday's Arizona Republic:
>> <>Fly
>> study points to master gene directing its sexual behavior
>> It looks to me that this has the makings of real conflict for those
>> who are certain that sexual preference and behavior are elective,
>> particularly when based on some pretty explicit scripture references.
>> There is some strong inference, some correlation evidence, and some
>> pretty decent (coherent) working hypotheses that up 'til now just
>> formed a tentative framework that anticipated this discovery. But
>> this appears very likely to be the missing genetic piece of the
>> puzzle - and unexpectedly focused on a single gene (at least in this
>> case).
>> JimA
> While it is often believed that behavior which is genetically
> determined cannot be sinful, I don't see why that should be the case.
> And, while I'm not sure I can explain exactly how this is the case,
> I'm not at all opposed to the idea that our genetics reflects our
> fallenness.
> The implicit assumption behind Jim's point is that if some behavior is
> genetically determined that it's not sinful. If you accept this
> assumption then, indeed, such a discovery may be a problem. If you
> don't accept this assumption then, then not only is such a discovery
> not a problem, it's yet another indicator that the effects and
> consequences of sin run very deep in our world.
> TG
Received on Sat Jun 4 23:56:43 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 04 2005 - 23:56:44 EDT