The Relative Failure of Biomimicry Points to a Designer

Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Existence of GodBiomimicry

Over the years, we have highlighted the apologetic value of biomimetics, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the study of the formation, structure, or function of biologically produced substances and materials (such as enzymes or silk) and biological mechanisms and processes (such as protein synthesis or photosynthesis) especially for the purpose of synthesizing similar products by artificial mechanisms which mimic natural ones.”1 Our informal apologetic argument has been basically the following reasoning from the lesser to the greater: If the imitation is designed, then it stands to reason that the superior, more sophisticated object of imitation also was designed.2

A wide variety of researchers are involved in biomimicry, but the relative failure of their admittedly ingenious efforts to mimic God’s creation serves to underscore the role of divine design in the production of natural structures. To use Paul’s words, “[T]he foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). From time to time, it is helpful to remind ourselves that researchers continue to admit the superiority of natural, biological “designs” over synthetics. Consider several examples:

Echolocation in Bats

We have previously noted the sensitive hearing bats employ as a “sonar” system that allows them to fly speedily through stalactite-filled caves and seemingly impenetrable wooded areas, and we have seen how bat echolocation has served as the inspiration for the development of sonar systems.3 The American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes a variety of journals under the masthead Science, is by no means friendly to creationism.4 Yet, consider this organization’s assessment of the state of biomimetics as it relates to echolocation:

Today, the remarkable abilities of bats are the inspiration for building better sonar systems. Bat echolocation is still more sophisticated and effective than any man-made sonar, and scientists around the world are working to fully understand the details that allow bats to perform aerial acrobatics at high speeds, in cluttered environments, amidst potentially interfering sounds—all using their mouths and ears.5

Despite the best efforts of human designers to mimic God’s creation, there has never been a sonar as effective as what bats already use. Surely their capability had a designer. (What’s more, the vast majority of bat species would not exist today if they lacked echolocation from their very first generation.)

Spider Silk

For years we have noted the amazing strength and flexibility of spider silk, which has served as the inspiration for new ways of making bulletproof vests, suspension cables, and artificial tendons.6 In 2017, Smithsonian Magazine reported that researchers at Cambridge University had created a new material that mimicked spider silk, was 98% water, and offered new opportunities for developing products from bike helmets to parachutes.7 Unfortunately, the synthetic substance was nowhere near as effective as natural spider silk. Darshil Shah, an engineer at Cambridge University’s Centre for Natural Material Innovation, told Smithsonian: “Spiders are interesting models because they are able to produce these superb silk fibers at room temperature using water as a solvent…This process spiders have evolved over hundreds of millions of years, but we have been unable to copy so far.”8 As of 2025, “challenges such as cost-effective production, scalability, and regulatory approval remain barriers to widespread adoption [of synthetic spider silk].”9 Yet spiders themselves have no such trouble mass-producing spider silk.

As a 2015 Wired story points out, “[S]o far, every group that’s attempted to produce enough of the stuff to bring it to the mass market, from researchers to giant corporations, has pretty much failed.”10 Despite the best efforts of human designers to mimic God’s creation, there has never been a synthetic spider silk as effective as what spiders already use for their very survival. Surely their capability had a designer.

Gecko and Mussel Glue

We have previously noted the gecko’s adhesive foot pads and the mussel’s ability to adhere to fully immersed surfaces.11 Drawing their inspiration from these two creatures, researchers about 20 years ago produced “geckel,” a glue made of nanotubes and protein polymer. Geckel has been used for water-resistant bandages, drug-delivery patches, and medical sutures to close wounds that bleed heavily. But years after the exciting announcements about the adhesive’s potential, there still is no mass production of the product. Phillip B. Messersmith of Northwestern University, who developed geckel, made a statement in 2007 that still holds: “The challenge will be to scale up the technology and still have the geckel material exhibit adhesive behavior.”12

Hibernation

Hypothermia is a medical emergency that occurs when an animal’s body loses heat faster than it can produce it, causing a dangerously low core body temperature.13 We have previously observed that certain animals, such as the American black bear and the arctic ground squirrel, exploit hypothermia by entering hibernation, a temporary, sleep-like torpor during cold, winter months.14 For decades, researchers have hoped to reduce the danger of certain tedious medical procedures, particularly when ill or injured human patients are involved, by inducing torpor. In 2023, Hong Chen, a professor of biomedical engineering at the Washington University School of Medicine, and her interdisciplinary team, induced a reversible torpor-like state in mice and rats by using focused ultrasound to stimulate the part of the brain that helps to regulate body temperature and metabolism.15 Chen wrote, “The capability of synthetic torpor to regulate whole-body metabolism promises to transform medicine by offering novel strategies for medical interventions.”16

And yet, any widespread application of artificial torpor appears to lie far in the future. One of the researchers on Chen’s team, Wenbo Wu, stated:

Our challenges include overcoming metabolic differences among animals and humans, choosing the correct dose of medication and creating ways to allow a reversible torpor-like state… Collaboration among scientists, clinicians and ethicists will be critical to develop safe, effective and scalable solutions for synthetic torpor to become a practical solution in medicine.17

Note that, according to Wu, one of the obstacles his team faces is “creating ways to allow a reversible torpor-like state.” This amounts to saying that one of the challenges of the whole project is the whole project. Again, we find that, despite the best efforts of highly capable human designers to mimic God’s creation, the torpor that preserves the lives of many animals has not been successfully imitated. Surely the superior, natural processes had a designer.

Conclusion

Perhaps there will be a time when a variety of biomimetic applications become effective and widespread. This circumstance will not nullify the point that design was required for the natural exemplars. About 2,000 years ago, the apostle Paul preached to the idolatrous people of Lystra and said that God had not left Himself without witness, but had made the heaven and the Earth and the sea and all that is in them (Acts 14:15). We are logically justified in reasoning from the products of the designer to His existence (see Romans 1:20).

Endnotes

1 “Biomimetics” (2026),” Merriam-Webster, merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biomimetics, parenthetical items in orig.

2 Kyle Butt (2001), “Thinking God’s Thoughts After Him,” Apologetics Press, apologeticspress.org/thinking-gods-thoughts-after-him-442/.

3 Caleb Colley (2004), “Bat ‘Vision’,” Apologetics Press, apologeticspress.org/bat-vision-1450/.

4 In fact, “AAAS has played a prominent role in responding to efforts in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere to weaken or compromise the teaching of evolution in public school science classrooms” (“Evolution on the Front Line” (2013), American Association for the Advancement of Science, aaas.org/news/evolution-front-line).

5 Mary Bates (2011), “Discovering sonar in bats,” American Association for the Advancement of Science, aaas.org/membership/scientia/discovering-sonar-bats, emp. added.

6 Eric Lyons (2007), “Exceptional Spider Silk,” Apologetics Press, apologeticspress.org/exceptional-spider-silk-2150/.

7 Emily Matchar (2017), “New Artificial Spider Silk: Stronger Than Steel and 98 Percent Water,” Smithsonian Magazine, smithsonianmag.com/innovation/new-artificial-spider-silk-stronger-steel-and-98-percent-water-180964176/.

8 Ibid.

9 Leonard Whye Kit Lim (2025), “Spider silk applications: Dermatologic theranostics, cosmetics, aerospace, textile and electronics,” Journal of Dermatologic Science and Cosmetic Technology, sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950306X25000561.

10 Davey Alba (2015), “Startup Says It’s the First to Make Synthetic Spider Silk,” Wired, wired.com/2015/06/bolt-threads-spider-silk/.

11 Eric Lyons (2007), “Sticky Business,” Apologetics Press, apologeticspress.org/sticky-business-2250/.

12 Northwestern University (2007), “Synthetic Adhesive Mimics Sticking Powers of Gecko and Mussel,” ScienceDaily, sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070718140750.htm.

13 “Hypothermia” (2024), Mayo Clinic, mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypothermia/symptoms-causes/syc-20352682.

14 Caleb Colley (2004), “Torporific Biomimicry,” Apologetics Press, apologeticspress.org/torporific-biomimicry-2251/.

15 Beth Miller (2025), “WashU Expert: Synthetic torpor has potential to redefine medicine,” Washington University, engineering.washu.edu/news/2025/WashU-Expert-Synthetic-torpor-has-potential-to-redefine-medicine.html.

16 Wenbo Wu, Genshiro A. Sunagawa, and Hong Chen (2025), “Synthetic torpor: advancing metabolic regulation for medical innovations,” Nature Metabolism, https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-025-01345-3.

17 Miller, “WashU Expert: Synthetic torpor has potential to redefine medicine.”

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Peter’s Instruction to Husbands Brian R. Kenyon

 Peter put it this way, “Husbands, likewise, dwell with 

them [your wives] with understanding, giving honor 

to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being 

heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers 

may not be hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7). The word translated “dwell [live, ESV]” is from a word (sunoikeo, 

συνοικέω) that means to live with, live together. This 

word is found nowhere else in the New Testament. 

Peter gave four ways, husbands are to live with 

their wives. First, husbands must live with their wives 

intellectually. The word translated “understanding 

[knowledge, KJV; from gnosis, γνωσις]” refers to 

knowledge; understanding or consideration (2 Pet. 

1:5-6; 3:18). A husband must not only understand 

his God-given role as the head of his family (Eph. 

5:25-33), but he must also know his wife. He must 

use every available tool, including the Bible, to help 

him get to know his wife (her likes, dislikes, etc.). 

Second, husbands must live with their wives honorably. “Giving honor [showing honor, ESV]” carries 

the idea of the husband showing his wife respect. He 

must praise the good character of his wife, like the 

writer of Proverbs, who penned, “Many daughters 

have done well, But you excel them all” (Pr. 31:29). 

Third, husbands must live with their wives physically. “Weaker vessel [someone weaker, NAS95]” 

indicates, generally speaking, that women are physically weaker than men. “Weaker” (from asthenes, 

ἀσθενής) usually means sick; weak (Mt. 25:43; Lk. 

9:2; Acts 4:9), but it can also mean delicate, as in 

parts of the body (Rom. 5:6; 1 Thes. 5:14). “Vessel” 

(from skeuos, σκεũος) refers to an object, thing (plural often goods, property); vessel, container, dish; 

instrument (Acts 9:15); one’s body or one’s wife (1 

Thes. 4:4). The husband needs to “carry the physical 

weight” of the marriage by protecting his wife, providing for her physical needs, and making her life as 

less stressful as possible! Fourth, husbands must live 

with their wives spiritually. Peter’s declaration of 

their “being heirs together [fellow heirs, KJV] of the 

grace of life” indicates that wives are spiritual equals 

with their husbands. Both are made in the image and 

likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27), and Christ died for 

them both (Mt. 20:28). Although they have different 

roles in the home (Eph. 5:22-33) and church (1 Tim. 

2:8-15), both men and women will receive the same 

“grace of life,” if they are faithful to the Lord (cf. 2 

Tim. 4:7-8; Rev. 2:10). Paul put it this way, “There 

is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor 

free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all 

one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

The seriousness of the husband’s role is seen in 

the ending clause, “that your prayers may not be 

hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7b). The word from which “hindered” (egkopto, ἐγκόπτω) is translated means to cut 

in on; prevent, hinder; detain (Acts 24:4; Rom. 15:4; 

Gal. 5:7; 1 Thes. 2:18). Sin is the only thing that hinders prayers (cf. Isa. 1:15; 59:1-2; Jn. 9:31)! Thus, 

not fulfilling these God-given ways in which a husband should live with his wife is sin

SATAN Video 22 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/satan/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Did Elisha Lie?

Eric Lyons

Alleged DiscrepanciesOld Testament

As Ben-Hadad, the king of Syria, made war with Israel, the prophet Elisha warned the Israelite king (Joram) time and again how to avoid his enemy. When Ben-Hadad learned that Elisha was the one who kept the king of Israel informed, he commissioned “a great army” to go and arrest the prophet of God (2 Kings 6:13-14).

When Elisha saw the Syrian army, he prayed that the Lord would strike them with blindness, which He did. The prophet then told the blinded Syrians, “This is not the way, nor is this the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek” (2 Kings 6:19). Elisha proceeded to lead them to Samaria, the capital of Israel. Only after the Syrians were inside Samaria did God return to them their sight. Undoubtedly, it was here that Elisha revealed himself to the Syrians.

The question that many wonder is, “Did Elisha, a prophet of God, lie?” Rather than reveal himself to the Syrians when he first met them, he said, “‘This is not the way, and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek.’ And he led them to Samaria” (6:19, ESV). Bible critics allege that Elisha lied (cf. McKinsey, 2000, p. 542), while many Bible believers also question the ethics of it all. Did Elisha sin in his dealings with the Syrians?

First of all, Bible students must keep in mind that every person who has ever lived, except Christ, has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 Peter 2:22). Yes, all of the godly people mentioned in the Bible sinned at various times in their lives. Even inspired penmen, including Moses, David, and Peter, sinned at times. [NOTE: Inspired spokesmen and writers communicated the Spirit’s supernatural revelation accurately as He “carried” them “along” (2 Peter 1:20-21), but inspiration was not a 24-hour-a-day, supernatural process that protected inspired men from ever being able to sin.] No doubt, at various times in his life, Elisha sinned against God. Thus, whether Elisha lied on this occasion or not, he definitely fell short at some point in his life.

That said, we must also keep in mind that there is a difference in lying and (1) not revealing everything you know (e.g., John 6:64,70-71), (2) diverting one’s attention, (3) outwitting an enemy during a time of war (e.g., Judges 7:1-22), etc. If a soldier in a bunker puts his hat on a stick and raises it in the air to see if the enemy shoots it, has he deceived the enemy in a sinful sense? He intentionally tried to make the enemy think that his head was under the hat, but such a trick of war is not a lie. If soldiers impersonate the enemy by wearing the enemies’ uniforms while infiltrating the camp, have the soldiers been sly in order to gain the advantage? Yes. Have they lied? No. How many truthful, though blatantly elusive, things can a passionate husband and wife say to their child who finds a way into their room in the middle of the night? There are many noble ways to answer questions without revealing exactly what someone wants to know.

When the Syrians invaded Israel in order to find and arrest the prophet of God, Elisha appeared to them, without first revealing himself to his blind enemies. Instead, he said to follow him and he would bring them to the one they sought. He eventually revealed himself to them, but only after he had led them to Samaria and their sight was returned to them. Did Elisha trick his pursuers? Yes. But misleading enemy soldiers, intruders, or others who might want to do us harm is not necessarily the equivalent of lying. When God sent Samuel to Bethlehem for the purpose of anointing David as the next king of Israel, Samuel mentioned that Saul would kill him if he heard of it. God’s response: “Take a heifer with you, and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.’ Then invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; you shall anoint for Me the one I name to you. So Samuel did what the Lord said” (1 Samuel 16:2-4, emp. added). When the elders of Bethlehem asked Samuel if he came peaceably, the prophet said, “Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord” (16:5). Was the sacrifice the main purpose of Samuel’s visit to Bethlehem? No. But Samuel was under no obligation to tell his questioners the central reason for his visit. He simply revealed to them a secondary reason for his arrival into town.

God does not condone lying (Proverbs 6:16-17; Ephesians 4:25). There is never a justifiable reason to be untruthful (see Colley, 2010). A husband cannot lie about having a wife. A child cannot lie to his parents. A Christian cannot lie about being a follower of Christ (whether to escape death or for any other reason). As Christians we are to be as “harmless as doves.” But, we are also to be as “wise as serpents” (Mark 10:16). God’s people are not obligated to tell others everything they know. And, like Samuel, we may only reveal secondary reasons for certain things we do, especially if in doing so (1) we are still being honest, and (2) we have godly motives for not divulging all of the facts on a given occasion.

The Scriptures do not clearly indicate whether Elisha lied to the Syrians or not. (Of all the communication that likely took place between them, only one line is recorded in Scripture; 2 Kings 6:19). If Elisha did lie, such a sin would neither reflect poorly on God or the Bible—“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Still, we must be careful not to over-react to what Elisha did. In a time of war, he strategically led his God-given “captives” to “the city” of his choosing, where he would reveal “Elisha” to them.

REFERENCES

Colley, Caleb (2010), “Defending the Biblical Truth Against Lying,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2843.

McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Homosexuality and Transgenderism: The Science Supports the Bible

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

For over 40 years, a host of forces have worked vigorously to normalize homosexuality in American society—culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous ruling that stipulated homosexual marriage as a constitutional right. These same forces have most recently turned their attention to transgenderism.¹ As is always the case, when human beings decide that they want to pursue certain behaviors that have always been considered deviant and illicit (particularly in God’s sight), they will do everything possible to bully and intimidate the opposition (cf. Genesis 19:9). A careful analysis of history demonstrates that the tactics that have been used the past several decades to advance sexual aberration in America are reminiscent of propaganda schemes that have successfully transformed other societies, including Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes.²
For all the bombast, coercion, venom, and widespread ridicule marshalled by the left³ and directed against Americans who have steadfastly remained unmoved in their conviction that homosexuality and transgenderism are immoral behaviors, it is refreshing and encouraging to hear the truth declared by credible scientists. In a special report titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh divulged their startling findings.⁴ Consider their qualifications and credentials.
Lead author Dr. Mayer is an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry, a biostatistician, and a research physician, having trained in medicine and psychiatry in the U.K. and received the British equivalent (M.B.) to the American M.D. Currently a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, Mayer has been a full-time tenured professor for over 40 years, having held professorial appointments at eight universities, including Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, and the University of Michigan. He has also held research faculty appointments at several other institutions, including the Mayo Clinic. He has held appointments in 23 disciplines, including statistics, biostatistics, epidemiology, public health, social methodology, psychiatry, mathematics, sociology, political science, economics, and biomedical informatics, and has been published in many top-tier peer-reviewed journals. Co-author Dr. McHugh is arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century and one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He is the former chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital and is presently a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.⁵
These scientists found that the most frequently heard claims about sexual orientation and gender identity are not supported by scientific evidence. They found that the LGBT community suffers from “a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.”⁶ Regarding sexual orientation, they found: “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”⁷ “Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”⁸
Regarding human sexuality as it relates to mental health and social stress, they discovered that, “compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes,” and are “estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.” Further, “members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population” with “the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.”⁹
Regarding gender identity, the research showed that “the hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”¹⁰ What’s more:

Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.¹¹

In view of the finality of such drastic surgeries and their impact on mental health, the report insists that

nearly all children ultimately identify with their biological sex. The notion that a two-year-old, having expressed thoughts or behaviors identified with the opposite sex, can be labeled for life as transgender has absolutely no support in science. Indeed, it is iniquitous to believe that all children who have gender-atypical thoughts or behavior at some point in their development, particularly before puberty, should be encouraged to become transgender.¹²

Conclusion

You see, if the Bible is, in fact, of divine origin, i.e., if there really is a God, and He’s the God of the Bible,¹³ then the information given in the Bible can be counted on for its veracity. If it affirms explicitly that homosexuality is “against nature” and an “abomination” (Romans 1:26; Leviticus 18:22),¹⁴ then we can know that such a behavior is not genetic.¹⁵ Knowledge of the truth regarding human behavioral proclivities pertaining to a host of actions is available from the Creator who created the human body and infused it with a spirit, a personality, a mind. We can know what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral.
Hence, Christians were not at all surprised to see some years ago the invention of junk science to allege a genetic source for homosexuality; nor are they surprised finally to hear some honest, legitimate, reputable, credible, scientific investigation that harmonizes with the Bible viewpoint. One can imagine the hostile response with which this latest research has been received by the anti-Christian forces of political correctness. Nevertheless, may the rest of the scientific community heed the admonition of Dr. Mayer when he urges colleagues to maintain impartiality and not allow political controversy and culture to taint their research: “May they never lose their way in political hurricanes.”¹⁶

EndnotES

¹ Vice-President Joe Biden ludicrously labeled transgender discrimination “the civil rights issue of our time”—Jennifer Bendery (2012), “Joe Biden: Transgender Discrimination Is ‘The Civil Rights Issue Of Our Time’,” The Huffington Post, October 30, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/joe-biden-transgender-rights_n_2047275.html.
² William Allen (1965), The Nazi Seizure of Power (New York: Franklin Watts); George Mosse (1981), Nazi Culture (New York: Schocken Books), pp. 7ff.; J.P. Stern (1975), Hitler: The Führer and the People (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), pp. 35ff.; Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (New York: Vintage Books).
³ By “the left” I mean those who champion behaviors that throughout history have been deemed immoral by Christian standards. Sometimes alluded to as the “cultural aristocracy,” the primary instigators in America have been television networks and the leftist news media, university faculties, liberal mainline Protestant denominations, Hollywood, liberal judges, and various foundations that are dedicated to transforming the American way of life.
⁴ Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh (2016), “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” The New Atlantis, 50:10-143, Fall, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016. The authors explain their methodology: “This report offers a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of many of the most rigorous findings produced by the biological, psychological, and social sciences related to sexual orientation and gender identity. We examine a vast body of scientific literature from several disciplines. We try to acknowledge the limitations of the research and to avoid premature conclusions that would result in over-interpretation of scientific findings…. [O]ur focus is on the scientific evidence—what it shows and what it does not show” (p. 10, emp. in orig.).
⁵ The reasons for recounting the lengthy and impressive credentials of the authors is to demonstrate (1) that they would be considered by the secular community to be highly qualified to discuss the subject, and (2) that they are not “right wing radical” Christians or religious fanatics who are biased in their appraisals of the scientific evidence. Indeed, Dr. McHugh describes himself as a “politically liberal” Democrat—Erica Goode (2002), “Psychiatrist Says He Was Surprised by Furor Over His Role on Abuse Panel,” The New York Times, August 5, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/us/psychiatrist-says-he-was-surprised-by-furor-over-his-role-on-abuse-panel.html?pagewanted=all.
⁶ Mayer and McHugh, p. 6.
⁷ Ibid., p. 7.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ p. 8, emp. added. The authors note: “The prevailing explanation in the scientific literature is the social stress model, which posits that social stressors—such as stigmatization and discrimination—faced by members of these subpopulations account for the disparity in mental health outcomes. Studies show that while social stressors do contribute to the increased risk of poor mental health outcomes for these populations, they likely do not account for the entire disparity” (p. 59, emp. added).
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Ibid., p. 9, emp. added.
¹² Ibid., p. 6, emp. added.
¹³ Abundant evidence proves these facts. See apologeticspress.org.
¹⁴ For further discussion regarding the biblical view of homosexuality, see Dave Miller (2012), “The President and Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=689&topic=36.
¹⁵ Four reasons why we can logically know that homosexuality is not genetically based: (1) The God of the Bible would not forbid or condemn a behavior, holding an individual culpable, if the behavior is in-born, endemic to a person’s being, or an act that the person cannot control or from which he cannot refrain; (2) In referring to homosexuals, when Paul said to the Corinthians, “such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11), he demonstrated that practicing homosexuals can cease their illicit practice; (3) As a matter of fact, many practicing homosexuals have reformed, further proving that the practice is a choice; and (4) no scientific evidence exists demonstrating the presence of an alleged “gay” gene.
¹⁶ Mayer and McHugh, p. 6.