Quoting Quiverfull: Genetic Claims?

by Doug Wilson and posted at Vision Forum

“For the sake of argument, we should readily grant homosexual genetic claims. God controls everything, and so we can grant any and all scientific claims about the genetic bases of sin. Accept it all in the providence of God. Every sin is genetically grounded, and yet, in a Christian cosmos, we are still responsible. We should also add the warning that those who trust in science are doomed to be refuted; genetic scientists two hundred years from now will laugh at our current, cutting-edge discoveries.”

Comments open below

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce

 

About Suzanne Calulu
  • persephone

    We’re already laughing at your claims, Doug.

  • aim2misbehave

    “Doomed to be refuted”

    It’s been about 400 to 500 years, the theories of gravity and heliocentrism are going to be refuted any day now, right?

    More seriously, though, does he not understand that science doesn’t “refute” earlier discoveries whenever someone comes up with something new, but the new discovery almost always builds upon something? Even when scientists say “It changes everything we know” it’s still not the facts that change, it’s the paradigm.

  • aim2misbehave

    “Doomed to be refuted”

    It’s been about 400 to 500 years, the theories of gravity and heliocentrism are going to be refuted any day now, right?

    More seriously, though, does he not understand that science doesn’t “refute” earlier discoveries whenever someone comes up with something new, but the new discovery almost always builds upon something? Even when scientists say “It changes everything we know” it’s still not the facts that change, it’s the paradigm.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X