Site Title Image

-Privacy Policy- does not share any personal information about its readers. Email addresses, or other personal information is strictly confidential.

Contact Information:

Email Robert:

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Article by: Robert Gross All Rights Reserved
Search the Index's:- Page (1), Page (2), Page (3), Page (4), Page (5), Page (6),

Feedback for:
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

First, I found the article to be well organized and the ideas expressed in unambiguous, fluid and coherent sentences. By employing a tone of unequivocal fervor throughout, you further solidified your antipodal position vis-à-vis Darwinian autochthonous natural processes that underlie research by all those in the related disciplines.

In my comments directed to your ideas, I will also sound off by highlighting my understanding of the importance of research that responds to the autochthonous nature of the physical world.

In Darwinian evolution all of life descends from a universal common ancestor abbreviated in the literature as L.U.C.A., Last Universal Common Ancestor. All species of life forms arise and develop through the natural selection of inherited variations that increase the individual organism’s ability to adapt, survive, and reproduce. Hence, Darwin’s title “The Origin of Species”, 1859. Darwin: “I wanted to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief advocate of change.” Whether through the forces of natural selection and/or mutations, it is nature’s handiwork that generates the great and teeming diversity of Earth’s life forms. His mechanisms in the natural universe do not exclude organs such as the eye, the brain, the cell, the heart, and the central nervous system.

Research by scholars in related disciplines – genetics, molecular biology, biophysics, biochemistry, geology, paleontology, and taxonomy – is carried out within nature’s realm. The findings are testable, replicable, refutable, falsifiable and verifiable by their peers everywhere. Nowhere in the investigative process does the researcher evoke extraterrestrial or supernatural agents – no dens ex machina.

It is interesting to note here that in 1950 Pope Pius XII endorsed the idea that religion and Darwinian evolution can coexist. Later in 1996 Pope John Paul II endorsed evolution of the soma but reserved the human soul as the core belief of Christianity. He said, “The soul is God’s creation and is therefore everlasting.” According to this pronouncement, God does not preclude evolution. But, there is opposition elsewhere and not just from religious faiths. In the past ten years much is coming the leadership of The National Center for Science Education in Seattle. In about 1988 the term intelligent came up in a conference at Tacoma where a theory was brought forward based on the presence of DNA in cells as evidence of a designing intelligence. This term appears to have come from an 1802 book Natural Theology by William Paley where he stated that the complexity of nature implies an intelligent creator, namely, God.

Among the advocates of I.D. theory in the Seattle – based organization, Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, has emerged as the principal advocate through his book Darwin’s Black Box and in articles and public lectures. On Feb. 1,2005, he published a column in the New York Times’ op. ed. Page, in which he defended I.D. as an alternative theory to Darwin’s. He dismissed random mutations as the driving force in the modifications of life’s forms, in a step-by-step process over eons of time. He asked, “How can you not embrace I.D. theory on the evidence of the profound appearance of design in life’s forms?” He went on in the column to dismiss Darwinian natural mechanisms for the reason that organs like the cell, the eye, and the brain are irreducibly complex and too intricately functional to have evolved one step at a time. As supporting evidence, he equates a watch and its mechanisms with a cell and its “factory” of molecules. In his analogy he adds that, “A cell’s interlocking assembly lines are like the engineered, the designed network of assembly lines of manmade machines. Then, so too, are biological forms we observe all around us.” From this he concluded that this “profound appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, we have warrant to conclude it is a duck.” His critics were quick to remind him that his analogy is unacceptable, inapplicable for it equates artifacts designed and produced by people and their technology with organic matter that is not a product of invention and manufacture. They also counter with a reminder that I.D. theory is not testable, not verifiable, and not falsifiable, all so central to scientific methods of investigation. One critic put it briefly by reminding Behe, a fellow scientist, that I.D. theory is not subject to the “Compelling evidence to the contrary.”

The word complicated appears in George Santayana’s definition of miracles, and for this reason, I quote it here. “Miracles are propitious accidents the natural causes of which are too complicated to be readily understood.” This comes close to Behe’s view of Darwin’s natural causes driving evolution. Philip Pullman author, a critic of God-Centered science is reported to have said that the proponents of I.D. theory were “gardeners of the dark roots of superstition and miracles.” In Robert Frost’s sonnet “Design” there are several meanings of design that advocates and followers of I.D. should ponder. Quoted here:


I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth-
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches’ broth-
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?-
If design govern in a thing so small.

Robert Frost

I note expressions in your discussion that parallel the criticisms from advocates of I.D. theory. For instance, you decry randomness in modifications and differentiation and stress “orderliness and balance.” You discern a “ logical and choreographed system” that would preclude Darwinians mechanisms as “a chaotic, accidental orgy.” You also employ an analogy to support your ideas, observations and conclusion between a machine, the automobile, and its “growth” through the refinement of design and the story of life on Planet Earth. Although you do hedge a bit by placing growth within quotes, you deduce from this comparison that the “elements” in a man made artifact, the autos are also true for life’s changes and are similarly designed. In the 19th century Darwin’s critics equated clock design and functioning to support their arguments in favor of God’s handiwork in all of nature, offering one obvious and ubiquitous example, the symmetrical design in flower blossoms, particularly bilateral, radial, and spiral design.

Now just as then, members of the scientific community pronounce analogies that equate mechanical design in man-made artifacts with organic growth and function deceptively attractive and inapplicable, as scientific evidence.

In conclusion, I join I.D. critics who say that its theory obviates any further research, since all that is required is acceptance of an abiding faith in the designing engineer, the Intelligent Designer.

With respect to your fictional account of the origin and development of life on Planet Earth, I must tell you that you are in high-octane company. Francis Crick, a Brit who co-discovered the structure of D.N.A and later a Nobel Laureate, published “Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature” 1981. He speculates that a spaceship from a distant planet “delivered the seeds of life.” His peers have the suspicion that his purpose was to stimulate serious research into the chemistry of Earth’s earliest atmosphere and in “a pre-biotic soup” that would have generated the first living systems, the first cells, perhaps Eukaryotes and or Prokaryotes.

I have read reports of recent progress in the reconstruction of how life might have evolved, these coming from laboratories employing high-tech simulations of Earth’s pre-biotic environment, including the atmosphere. According to reports of these projects, simulations suggest the presence of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The experimenters say that together, these two gases “would have transformed into organic compounds.” Incidentally, in your scenario I don’t recall any mention of hydrogen, an indispensable element, I believe for life.

I’ve no doubt that rigorous and sober attempts to reconstruct, with the aid of Über-technology, life’s Origin development will go forward. Evidence of scientific incompleteness in pursuit of knowledge of things in the physical universe is no reason to require any appeal to alien or supernatural forces, or to an intelligent design agent. In the field of biology and related disciplines, L.U.C.A. may forever elude researchers, but who knows what fruits the journey may harvest.

Edwin Strong

Robert Replies:

First, let me thank you for your thoughtful reply to my article about 'Evolution vs. Intelligent Design'.I will begin my reply with this piece from the US (Italia) Weekly. I thought it succinct in its portrayal to one of your points concerning Darwinian Theory vs. ID.

God & Darwin / Balancing Heart and Mind

by, Paolo Janni

Today, in our globalized world, the transition between modernity and post-modernity finds us at the crossroads between two schools. The secular school wants to remove all religious, cosmic, and metaphysical views from public life as the only adhesive to stay together. The reactive, culture-based schools instead see the removal of transcendence as a gigantic threat to their very survival. The former forgets God. The latter forgets humankind.

What contributions can Darwinian theory and intelligent design give, each in their own way, to strengthen faith in a God that created and ''manages'' life in the niverse? Most likely, neither one can make any. Darwinism is not explicitly concerned with these matters, while intelligent design – which lacks scientific legitimacy, as it cannot be tested by experiment or observation – cannot attempt to tackle the matter from a scientific point of view. Both go well beyond our human experience, and both can be made compatible with faith only by an act of faith towards one or the other.

It is abundantly clear that you are correct about the provability of intelligent design vis-à-vis the scientific method. However, the anecdotal evidence for intelligent design is staggering. It turns out that DNA is the script or program that decides all facets of a life-form. Every cell in every living thing contains a copy of its genome. The human genome contains some 3 billion base pairs. The number of combinations of the four bases is staggeringly high. Imagine natural selection diddling with such an outrageous number until the tumblers in the lock says Eureka!! Even more unbelievable, the number of base pairs is not the same for all living things. The smaller of the genomes that are typically found in bacteria, they only carry about 40,000 base pairs at the minimum, and more in a lot of cases. 40,000 to the power of 4 (ACTG) gives the number of different combinations possible that the base pairs can align themselves into unless you add the different combinations of genes with their amino acid stop markers. The bases in the DNA strand always line up in pairs; A (adenine)always matches up with T (thymine)while C (cytosine)always matches up with G (guanine).

About base Pairs: Base pairs are not just simple molecules. It takes three molecule groups to form a nucleotide, which is one-half of a base pair. Those molecule groups consist of: (1) a phosphoric acid (phosphate) group, (2) a five-carbon sugar (deoxyribose) and (3) an organic base (one of the four A, C, T, or G). When the sugar of one nucleotide and the acid (phosphate) react with each other, a strand is started, albeit a one-sided strand. To make DNA, the base part of this strand (ACGT) has to be attracted to another base. Stranding of nucleotides could theoretically go forever. There is yet no organization. DNA is a long double helix of Base Pairs held together with a sugar-phosphate backbone. We can and do manufacture this ribbon. We can create the sequences we need to insert into the DNA of a living cell (gene splicing) and thus make the cell act the way we want. Toxic clean up bacteria come to mind. There are many patented bacteria that are produced by industry for a whole host of purposes.

Visually, imagine untold billions of monomers, (nucleotides) and these monomers have to somehow assemble themselves into strands of DNA. Assuming that the monomers have already formed. Forming the monomers is not an overnight accomplishment, but for this exercise, we will assume that they have already formed. One of the twenty possible amino acid combinations in the human genome are at the end of a sequence of Base Pairs and represent a stop marker for that particular gene. There are 34,000 genes that make one set of instructions to grow a human. Each gene, which can be strands of up to 97,000 individual nucleotides x 2, have to be arranged in a very specific order to comprise the instruction for a human. The number of ways these molecules can be arranged is so immense, that accidental alignment of a genome runs out of time before the natural selection model can start. The Darwinian model supposes that random selection is responsible for the world’s creatures as we see them today while denying the possibility of creation. What really makes it all confusing is that natural selection is a fact, but not the genesis of life. My article makes the point that the changes are not random, but instead, programmed responses to definite criteria. Natural selection is the result of DNA programming to enable a life form’s success.

The miracle of miracles would be for a spontaneous, self-starting, non-created life form to begin.

It is the incredible number of possible DNA combinations that lead me to the conclusion that creation doesn’t sound so far off the mark. Plus, the added realization that DNA is perfectly programmable. Programming is the only explanation for the inheritance of behavior. In my piece, I tried to illustrate behavior inheritance with the sea turtle. We always think of the behavior of a life form as instinctive, but it is really programming. The creator I imagine isn’t some magical god with unimaginable, miraculous powers, but instead, an intelligent creature with the same instincts as us.

Human programming is part and parcel of being a human. We will defeat death as we know it, and go out into the cosmos and do our part in creating. It is already a part of what and who we are. Plans to reform Mars into a habitable place are already in the serious planning stage. But this is only a baby step for now, and someday we will complete the circle. One has but to look at the larger picture to understand that whatever we are, there is a lot more to come. We are born creators, maybe just engineering bacteria and cloning animals now, but the best is yet to come when we create worlds. Just as we were created, we will create.

In my article, I commented that neither theory was beneficial to humanity. This is the main thrust of the article (obliquely). The secular grip on this nation has the everyday decisions of right and wrong blurred. To me, it is logic, and not religious fervor that motivates the articles that I write. There will always be a need for a force to maintain civil order, and the self-discipline of those of faith is far preferable to a police state enforcing whatever is popular at the time. Even now, more and more police are needed to protect us. Gangs infest our cities and as a population we are having to live behind locked doors. People of good will do not have to fear each other. Nor do I embrace the crazies (religious creationist) who deny what is known about our planet. Either one of these groups represents a slide backwards and a threat to human progress. My trying to bolster the idea of intelligent design is an attempt to make it more reasonable to grasp the thought that maybe we (humans) are a creation.

I know that some of this is over the top, but somewhere in all of this is what I really think. I endorse religion because at the present it is far preferable to any alternative that is floating around. Until, and if human beings develop some semblance of self-discipline, religion is not an alternative; it is an imperative. Man is far too corruptible to make the jump into secularism. I much prefer the phoniness of piousness to the uncertain, instability of a political police state and the anarchy that will ensue.


Robert Gross

Top of Page

Unlimited Sex Feedback:

In regard to your article ‘Sex Unlimited’-- Please, if you post my reply , you will maintain my identity as ‘Anonymous’. (Agreed)

First, the importance of the past in this most pervasive activity and its’ many forms of expression in human societies, for an understanding of the role of sexuality in our 21st Century.

Beginning with the Greeks and the later the Romans, we experience in their writings – history, myths, drama and poetry, sculpture and architecture, sexuality in its various manifestations that permeate the sources. Conflict, not harmony is at the center of the content, in form, in events and actions. Lust reigns and imbues their works with tensions and violence – jealousy, vengeance, venality and even wars. We recall Helen and her lust that ended in the Trojan War; Eve the “architect” of the Fall; Cleopatra’s lust for carnal love and political power that led to so much mischief. And all the eroticism and devilment of the gods.

The middle ages was a long period devoted to Europe’s ‘princes’ and ‘kings’ and Popes efforts through four Crusades to rid Jerusalem of the Muslims.

By the early 1400’s, the Renaissance was flourishing in Florence under the rule of the Medici dynasty that lasted well over two hundred years. In all the arts there is a legacy of the driving force of lust – Poetry, drama, paintings, oratory, and yes, political intrigue. Wanton sexuality in its most destructive and creative expression is on display. Excess in sensuality was as much a part of the Popes and those who connived to become Pope as it was in literature, painting and voluptuous sculpture. You will recall that lust is listed number 2 among the ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ and a major cause of “spiritual death.”

Let me insert a conjecture here. Your concern with the negatives to the individual and society of “Unlimited Sexuality” and my concern over excess, not just sex but in so many other human activities, that lead to so much human misery, might not have occurred on the human scene had the human female experienced estrus as have all other animals. The animal females have a “timeout” except “in heat”. However, Mary Jane is there for her partner even in gestation periods and she is capable of multiple orgasms, if only her male dude could deliver.

England’s transition from Medieval to its renaissance probably began with Chaucer’s “Tales”. He had sojourned in Italy and was familiar with “The Decameron” and modeled his “Tales” on that famous work. Each pilgrim’s tale reveals a character that is a narrator of lusty sensuality and some are blatantly lewd. And those poets of the 1500’s were excellent at pleading their case to bed their loves. Seduction is a major theme in their poems. The mastery of erotic diction and rhythm in so many of the poems elevates indirection to artistic heights.

Science informs us that animal lust is innate. We are hard-wired for it. Human societies have installed institutions to keep it from running amok. These have been administered by males. Their methods to control, channel, suppress our carnality have involved the female to keep her “off limits” through rite and ritual, circumcision, the chastity belt, the Nunnery and in Western Societies much has come from the pulpit. The results were often disastrous; guilt-ridden psyches, frigidity, enslavement and all that hypocrisy! The humbuggery! Shakespeare’s lines come to mind: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when once we practice to deceive!”

In modern post-industrial times other institutions with different approaches for channeling human sexual behavior have actually resulted in greater liberation. The many vehicles of global communication and travel, wide spread literacy, and now cybernetics, and its infinite possibilities. Greater economic opportunities for women in all the professions have given them control in the exercise of their choices, many of which were exercised exclusively by the male society. Co-education, academic research in the biological sciences, brain science, and modern medical delivery – all impact on human choices and decisions leading to the conduct in handling them. Enter A.C.L.U., exit the pulpit, the moralist.

We will always have the sex predators among us: fathers, brothers, neighbors, scout-masters, and priests, even teachers, both male and female. Acts of violence and murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, pederasty, necrophilism, and white slavery are heinous crimes. The perpetrators must be identified, judged by a jury of peers, and, if found guilty, given a sentence that fits the crime.

My prediction is that your concern with the mischief resulting from “Unlimited Sex” and, my concern about the lack of restraint, of moderation, not only in the pursuit of sexual pleasures but excess in so many other activities, will come to naught. The Zeitgeist of the New Century presages even greater laxity in human sexuality. Egalitarian sexual behavior is now a given.

(Anonymous by request)

Robert Replies to Anonymous:

Please allow me a few brief thoughts about the piece that I wrote. First of all, my assumptions. Just as you stated there is a long written literary history of human excesses. I have always assumed that people of power, and the artistically inclined have always had a different set of values. Anecdotal evidence demonstrates that throughout history there has been one set of rules for the privileged and a different set for the masses. I maintain that the technological progress that different cultures have achieved over the millennia is in proportion to how socially liberal the masses were.

Technologically speaking, the societies with the most open attitudes toward sex are the least advanced. Making the connection between sex and sociological advancement may be a stretch, but one which I feel worth consideration. Mind you, I am not trying to sell the idea that Western Societies are pure as the wind driven snow, but their efforts to blunt the carnality of humans has been somewhat successful as evidenced by their cultural advancement.

I hold firmly to the notion that progress, by any society, is possible only by the aspirations and dreams of the masses. Once the masses (I hate that term) no longer need money, or big house, or fancy car to achieve nirvana, there is no longer a need to achieve.Another way of expressing this idea would be to repeat the old cliché; ‘Necessity is the mother of invention’. There has to be a top-of-the-heap to give those at the bottom-of-the-heap something to aspire to. Hopefully, the egalitarians will never succeed. Their success would spell the end to hopes and dreams of succeeding. Efforts by the A.C.L.U. and others portend nothing but decay for this society. Internationally, our educational system ranks back in the pack compared to other countries. Take a bow A.C.L.U. We have lost the one tool essential to a good education, the ability to discipline the classroom. Teachers and schools are sued today for transgressions that were once commonplace in a time when our children were educated.

In your reply to me, you mentioned the Medici period. One of my favorite periods. No matter the lifestyle of the privileged class, there was no doubt as to how they wanted the commoners to live. I submit a copy of this entry in the life of Leonardo Di Vinci. It is a testament to the pressures brought to bear on the underclass. They were expected to remain moral. Logically, it was the only way to elicit dedication to learning and achievement.

From the Life of Leonardo

By Giorgio Vasari

The first known instance of his interest in youths occurred in 1476. While still living with Verrocchio, he was twice accused anonymously of sodomy with a 17 year-old model, Jacopo d’Andrea Saltarelli, a boy already known to the authorities for his sexual escapades with men. After two months in jail, he was acquitted because no witnesses stepped forward. For some time afterwards, Leonardo and the others were kept under observation by Florence's Officers of the Night - a Renaissance organization charged with suppressing the practice of sodomy, as shown by surviving legal records of the Podesta and the Officers of the Night.

Further reading reveals more about Leonardo. It turns out that his many accomplishments were aided by his attitude about sex.

Leonardo kept his private life particularly secret, going as far as writing his journals in code. He also claimed to have a distaste of physical relations, quote: "The act of procreation and anything that has any relation to it is so disgusting that human beings would soon die out if there were no pretty faces and sensuous dispositions."

Freud would declare Leonardo a homo sexual and poor Leonardo has been made into an icon by the homo sexual world.

The point of this diversion is to reinforce the point of two ethics. There was the Public Ethic, and, that practiced by the Privileged Class. Those of Enlightenment and power had little regard for those moral strictures binding the public.

One of the anchors of my text is to illustrate that once the public ethic is broken, so then is the hope for this society. History is a tangled heap of societies who were victims of their own success, and fell because of their own excesses. Liberalism offers nothing but decay. Under any scenario, the future is dire in the clutches of ‘Egalitarians’.

The first part of the article I wrote is actually my loosely interpreted summation of a group of letters from Freud to Wilhelm Fliess. In those letters Freud spoke of the seduction and compliance of children with their adult aggressor. Quoted: "A resulting neurosis will likely produce a future adult who perpetuates this activity." The bright spot is that Freud saw these neurosis as something treatable.

I am in agreement with your assessment for the future. Writing these pitiful articles is the only way I have of registering my opposition to the direction this society is taking.


Robert Gross

Top of Page

Feedback to ‘Weaker Sex’:

The interaction of environment (culture) and nature in the formation of individual and collective behavior is a fertile field of research in ethnography, social anthropology, evolutionary biology, biochemistry, microbiology, evolutionary psychology, neuro-biology and brain science, and yes – even theology’s creationism or, if one prefers, intelligent design.

In your electronic posting you target the lubricious, promiscuous, accessible universal female and the mischief she has engendered throughout history. I will restrict my response to a couple of queries and a comment or two.

If each of the traits resulting from woman’s sexuality that you discuss is innate, biologically anchored, wired, isn’t men’s sexuality innate? Doesn’t it follow that their innate unbridled lust has engendered an equal amount of mischief in human societies?

As to the cultural dimension, who set down the rules and then institutionalized them in order to curb, to suppress accessible women’s carnal mischief? Hasn’t governance been the prerogative of men, even allowing for a few matriarchy’s, throughout human existence?

Your statement “Societies ganged up on the woman and men were given a pass” allows one to suspect that your chastisement of the scarlet ones is a tongue-in-cheek evaluation. Further, you cleverly use the passive voice in the end of that quote: “---men were given---“ who if not the male sex, authorized “the pass”? Gotcha!!

E.S. (Names will not be posted)

Robert Replies

I may never be a good writer, but there is so much to say. The tricky part is communicating. I don’t mind a person who disagrees with me as long as I have communicated my thoughts accurately. Now, more than ever, I understand the value of education and appreciate those who have the talent to fully articulate ideas to others. I would like to address your comments about my posting. I hope that I haven’t misinterpreted the thrust of your comments.

Essentially, your point was: Men are equally to blame for the problems of promiscuity. Only in the sense that heterosexual promiscuity requires a male participant. Other than the occasional hard rape, the woman is acquiescent in all unforced sex acts. Therefore, she is really the decision maker as to whether or not a liaison will occur. She has been given this choice for the purpose of procreation of the human population. The child bearer for humans has the particular responsibility for choosing a partner who will help nourish a child. This is the part that is wired. However, women can, and do abuse this responsibility for a lot of reasons other than procreation. The men are also wired. As long as a man has functioning gonads, he will seek out a willing female.

Here is the problem. The above declaration is not the thrust of what I wanted to communicate. (A lack of communication skills is the culprit.) Who’s to blame is not germane to anything in the article. The real point is about society and the rules that are necessary to maintain a civil social structure. Lacks of personal restraint resulting in social upheavals are real. Evidence shows, that when given a reason for behaving civilly, people do restrain themselves. The reference here is to the Christianized western cultures. Although the evidence is anecdotal, it is very convincing.

Governing rules have to be present, even in a totally secular society. Enforcing rules, absent Christianity with its ability to reign in humanity’s basic instincts, would take enough of the energy from that society to render it incapable of anything else. The loss of trust between the different segments of society would be enough to doom the experiment with secularism. (Referencing the gangs which plague our urban communities. They are thoroughly secular. They represent small islands of what a secular society would look like.) Can you imagine the amount of policing it would take for any body to govern such chaos? I would postulate that what started out as an experiment in total freedom, would have to, by necessity, become a dictatorship. (After it is decided who was the strongest. Wars perhaps?)

The moral compass, provided by Christianity cannot be underestimated. It has always been the gods of our societies which formed the glue that held them together. Whether it was Ra, Odin, Zeus and his family, Mohammed, a panoply of Asian Gods, or Jesus the Son of God. Every society had their gods. In some ways, religions are indigenous to each society and provide the glue that binds that society. To my chagrin, the liberal establishment wants to discredit Christianity in this country. Why? Can’t these people see that they offer nothing but harm to our society?

Even with the supposition that Christianity isn’t built on the firmest of foundations, the balance scales would surely tip to the ‘does more good’ than harm side. Liberals offer nothing to replace the belief system. They can only throw stones at something that works. What individuals should do is support their church and add moral strength to the population, not the continuation of harmful rhetoric. However, it should be stated that I am opposed to the superiority claims and the aggressive methods for proselytizing by any of the sectarian groups. I personally disagree with the proselytisms carried on by the different religions. If religions must convert, then do it by leading exemplary lives and setting an example. An example of conversion by force was the destruction of the Indians by the Spanish explorers in their fervor to prove the superiority of their religion and convert the natives of the Americas.

Ideally, if people had adequate self discipline, they could interact on their own recognizance, and there wouldn’t be a problem. While I am not particularly religious, I recognize that faith plays a huge part in controlling our actions. I have enormous regard for the power of faith. Faith is not just a belief in God, but the respect for life and the belief that there is a reward for being a decent respectful human. From my perspective, the reward I most seek is to leave a legacy which inspires my son and grand children to live decent useful lives. The laws which societies must enforce, to maintain the social order, should apply only to the incorrigibles, i.e. those without faith or self discipline, who must be forced into living civilly.

Observing today’s society, it is getting coarser. The lines are blurring between what is right and wrong. Respect for anything seems to be a casualty. Acquiring wealth by whatever means is a credo being cultivated by patience intolerant people who have tossed ethics aside. Pornography is becoming mainstream. The actors in the movies say more profanity than most people do in everyday life. It is even embarrassing to watch some of the new movies with my wife. She is no prude, but we both think the unchecked vulgarity in the movies today is unnecessary for most plots. I fear that we are losing our faith (as a society) and also losing the self discipline which controls our actions. Lose of either one coarsens society.

People gasp at the number of sexual predators and their crimes against our children, but fail to recognize the problem as being systemic. Hucksters, hawk their wares using near nude models suggesting sex, pornography is pervasive, sex has become recreational, and most people think the problem can be solved with stiffer laws and longer jail sentences for those who stray. It doesn’t even enter their minds that we may be cultivating these individuals by our own activities. Someday, there will be a recognition that there are consequences to what we do.


Robert Gross

Top of Page

Feedback to ‘Homosexuality’:

From : Mindy

Comments: Wow! Those are very strong allegations that you made concerning homosexuals. The one that prompted me to write this email was the one concerning the only thing that homosexuals are concerned with is the titillation of their bodies. While sexual promiscuity is an issue that I have with my own community, I can assure you that for you to make the pompous assumption that sexual gratification is the only thing we are concerned with is completely untrue. Maybe you are more familiar with big cities or sensationalized TV and movie depictions of our lifestyles. Maybe an official research study should be done just to determine what the norms, values, and practices of homosexuals are. The truth of the matter is you probably do business with at least one a day and have probably been taken care of by one, and quite possibly your kids have been taught by one. But that would be a generalization at this point, now wouldn't it. I mean assuming that they own their own business' or that they are doctors and nurses and teachers. Must be hard for them to hold down jobs and be so busy satisfying themselves sexually. The only difference is that I can make these generalizations because I am a part of the community and I KNOW what we are capable of and what we do. We walk beside the heterosexuals and help run this country!!!

I can assure (you) of one thing, weakness of character is not an issue with most homosexuals. They know who they are and what they want out of life. They know what pleases them and are able to stand up for themselves. That can not be said about many heterosexuals. Otherwise Dr. Phil would not be as popular as he is. Wonder why he doesn't have more gays on his shows? I do not discredit the fact that many relationships are short lived. The fall of the marriage institution is well documented through our U.S. census report. Did you see where half of all marriages end in divorce. That is alot. And has it ever occured to you that maybe there are less psychotics in "our community" than the heterosexual community because we are not living with the constant frustration of an unhealthy sexual life? Or the fact that they are fighting their own homosexual or bisexual tendancies?

And while we are it at, is not depression a form of a sin. God wants us all to live in happiness here. If we are worried and unhappy and depressed, then we are not allowing the Lord to lead and guide us through our lives. I am not going to get into a right or wrong thing with anyone concerning homosexualiity because the reality of it is that we all constantly sin in some manner everyday and many times it is a repeated thoughtful sin. However, there is no public condemnation of smokers, drinkers, speeders. People always want to get into moral debates about what is right and wrong. Who are we to debate that. NO ONE. That is God's job and I for one am glad it is his job. I have more important things to do like raise my 2 children with my partner of 7 years, further my education and career, take care of my body and mind and spirit, and pray to my gracious and loving God who is more loving and forgiving than some of his "spokesmen".


Robert Replies:

Hello Mindy,

First, thank you for the thoughtful feedback for my article about homosexuals. That article was the culmination of several interviews with members of the gay community. I came away with the impressions that were stated in the article.

I should mention, because it has been established scientifically, that there are persons born transgender. These individuals are not considered in my study because I wanted to concentrate on the vast majority of homosexuals who choose that lifestyle.

First, almost all felt that their 'gay sexual experience' was better than their heterosexual ones. I was told by a majority of the interviewees that just having an intimate knowledge of their own bodies made satisfying a same sex partner easier. Powerful orgasms were one of the features mentioned a lot as one of the reasons for their sexual preference. Hence my statement about caring so much about the titillation of bodies. At least three of the interviewees informed me to 'not knock it' if I hadn't tried it.

You pointed out one of the weaknesses of my piece, I did not interview any dedicated gay couples. For that I plead guilty. All of those interviewed were young singles.

A majority of them had bad heterosexual experiences ranging from rejection to abuse. However, this majority sought acceptance for the lifestyle they had chosen. The crutches I heard ranged from associating themselves to all the famous people who were gay to the statistics of heterosexual marriages. I'm sorry, but I can't justify any person making a choice like this based on the fact that Alexander the Great was gay. Does the fact of marriages going bad have any bearing on this decision? It really sounds petulant and child like to hear someone try and justify his lifestyle with such lameness.

My overall impression of these interviewees was of people who were really struggling to come up with acceptance for choosing to be gay. It was because of those who related their horror stories of bad heterosexual experiences as their main reason for being gay that I concluded that these individuals gave up. They didn't have the inner strength of character to resist the handy sympathy that is so abundantly available in the gay community. Without encouragement about life's ups and downs, they choose this alternate lifestyle that makes a mockery of life's challenges. The shame of it.

The piece was written on hopes that society as a whole, can make the decision to be gay, not an easy one. Gays will always be with us, along with the inner guilt that goes along with being 'different'. I detected a distinct discomfort when we discussed their families. Some of the interviewees confessed that some of their family members were uncomfortable around them. I know that this can't be very comforting to them, because they also love their families. Let those that want to be gay come hell or high water be gay. But, for those on the margins, there is no reason to push them over the edge. You may not believe it, but for those who remain strong, and persevere, there is someone of the opposite sex that will make them proud. We should, as a society, do everything we can to encourage those on the margins to not take the homosexual step.

All that being said, I do wish you well. With your permission, I will post your letter along with my response on the website. Most of the offerings I receive are not worth posting. It seems that a lot of vocabularies do not extend beyond four letters. The invitation is also extended if you wish to reply to this missive.




Top of Page
Robert Gross

Robert's Profile
<---- Briefly ---->

A Physics Major at the University of Texas
Retired from the offshore drilling industry where he worked as an Electrical Supervisor, Licensed Chief Engineer, and Electrical Designer.

Robert Writes for 2 Online Magazines and three private web sites.
Interests include computers, Cosmology, Evolution, and Environmental Research.

Robert welcomes your input whether you agree or not, and will respond via published commentary to all responsible comments.