It happens. Someone says something then they say something else and I go "huh?" Sometimes folks just say things that I don't get, and I need them to elaborate. Since I can't just dial up Dr. Albert Mohler on the phone and say "brother Al, how does this work?" I'm going to bare my confusion right here and hope one of my readers can help me figure out how these two statements fit together. Okay? Okay.
Brief background:
March 2 Dr. Mohler posted a piece on his blog about Gay Babies. No, I'm not kidding. Toward the end of that piece he listed 10 things Christians should take serious thought to. Here is number 8 (I'm, going to use bold to emphasis where my confusion comes in):
"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin." (source)
Okay, over the last 2 weeks the mainstream media picked up on this piece and had a field day with it, apparently (all I read was one piece at FOX news, and they did quote him exactly, from what I recall). So, Dr. Mohler promised to clarify today and he has. But... and you knew there was a but coming, didn't you?
In today's clarification Dr. Mohler says this:
"Research into the human genome and the possibility of germ-line therapies raises all kinds of moral concerns, ranging from the creation of designer babies to the redefinition of humanity. In one article, I was said to advocate genetic therapies. I never said that, and I resolutely oppose such proposals. I would not advocate the use of genetic therapies to create heterosexual babies -- or any other therapy of this type. The hypothetical question I addressed had nothing to do with genetic factors at all. Furthermore, genetic factors are likely to be so complex and inter-related that no single genetic factor or set of factors is likely to be found to cause anything as complex as sexual attraction." (source)
Okay? Now go back and re-read what he said on March 2. I can see how easy it would be for the media to say that he's advocating genetic therapies, since two weeks ago he clearly said that he would indeed support "treatment" if all the elements were in place to support a successful effort to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.
Didn't he? See why I'm confused? I'm not a scientist (but I do own a very cool microscope kit, I'm a homeschool mom, it's required), but it seems to me that the first statement of Dr. Mohler's was based on finding a biological basis to then determine the course of action which would include testing and treatment. The second statement of Dr. Mohler's was to deny that he ever advocated using genetic therapies.
So then, what is the difference between finding a biological basis & "treatment", and genetic therapies?
I know someone who is brilliant in science is going to come along any second now and clear this right up. Right?
