Focus On Misinforming Your Family
Johnny Letter has struck with an outraged missive to Jim Dobson and his boys at Focus On the Family! The fact that I got an actual case number (below) makes my mouth water in anticipation of the patronizing response I am likely to receive. Here's the case number and response-promise from FoF:
Thank you for submitting a comment or question. We are pleased that we can serve you in this capacity. Please be assured that our staff will review your communication, and you may receive a response from our Correspondence Department within the next 3-4 business days.Should you wish to follow up with this request or our response, please reference the following number: '050531-000625'.
Here's my Letter, angry and red:
Re: http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/maf/a0028248.cfm
I resent the way the authors of this article mischaracterize both the process of science and the particulars of some notable scientific studies.
Focus On the Family--an organization that purports to be interested in seeking and declaring Truth--should be ashamed of itself for the way it willfully misrepresents basic scientific concepts on this FAQ page.
Here are two examples:
1. "If homosexuality were in the genetic code, then both of the twins would have been homosexual 100 percent of the time..."
This is utterly at odds with any reasonable interpretation of the study, and I suspect that the author knows it. Even nonscientists are familar with the notion that behaviors are influenced both by genetics and by environment, and by making the absurd claim that the study's hypothesis required a finding of 100% correlation between identical twins to be supported is simply indefensible. The author in this case clearly has very little respect for the intellect of Focus On the Family readers. In reality, of course, the observed correlation of over 50% is an extremely strong piece of evidence that genetics plays a very significant role in determining sexual orientation.
2. "Let’s face it: science is meant to be fact . . . not theory."
How ridiculous. The person who wrote this is simply redefining science in a way that is completely irreconcilable with the way that actual scientists practice science. Again, where is the respect for your readers? Either the author is willfully mischaracterizing science (that's what I suspect), or he is woefully misinformed and is not capable enough to do even minimal research on the topic that he is attempting to write about.
As any scientist can tell you, science is 100% theory and 0% "fact." Though science can establish a theory to an very high degree of certainty, all theories are nevertheless considered to be provisional, with the possibility of refinement or complete rejection based on subsequent investigation. Admittedly, many people don't have an intuitive understanding of this point, but scientists tend to be more familiar with the history of science and can thus point out some of the famous periods in history where strongly-held scientific theories were greatly modified or even abandoned (e.g. Copernicus->Galileo->Kepler->Newton->Einstein).
I will read the rest of this FAQ, but I am interested in hearing a response from the author, or from anyone at Focus On the Family who can offer an explanation for these statements.
Of course, I do not expect a response. In reality, I have the strong feeling that I am far, far more concerned with Truth than is Focus On the Family, which is clearly willing to make terrible intellectual sacrifices for the promotion of its misguided agenda. In choosing such remarkably disingenuous ways to present a justification for your worldview, you are not only doing your core audience a major disservice, but you are strongly contributing to the decay of modern society that you so decry.
It is truly a shame that Focus On the Family cannot do a more truthful job of reconciling its beliefs with the world outside of its walls.
With Regret,
John Lum
813-632-0843
