Speculation in the name of science is so rampant that it is almost becoming comical.
Jianzhi “George” Zhang is a professor at the University of Michigan, and senior author of a study in Science Advances (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh4990). Now mind you, this research looks all official and scientific, but is not based on direct observation and experimentation. It is based on speculation using data from people of European descent who signed up with the UK Biobank (a long-term genomics project). What they have purported to find is that certain genetic variants influence, to some extent, whether or not people engage in same-sex behavior.
Now doing this type of research, where they take large samples from databases and study its contents, is not a bad thing. In fact, there is a lot that can be learned using large pools of data like this to explore the tendencies of various populations.
But hold on a minute! The way the data is used does make a difference. In this case, they are speculating that there are genetic variants that influence same-sex behavior. But how do they really know this? Well, they don’t. They are speculating based purely on a set of presuppositions that simply can’t be proven.
What they did was to study the DNA of study participants, then combined that information with responses to a survey. In doing that, they determined that people who identify as bisexual end up fathering more children than people who identify as homosexual. Huh? So people who have sex with the opposite sex (even though they also engage in same-sex behavior) have more children than people who only engage in same-sex relationships. Wow!
And to boost their assertions further, they have determined that people who self-identify as “risk-takers,” and also have certain genetic markers, tended to have more children. Wow! What a scientific breakthrough!
So this is their conclusion regarding the genes that they speculate influence bisexual behavior: “Our results suggest that male bisexual behavior with a certain genetic factor are likely reproductively advantageous, which may explain their (the genetic factor’s) past persistence and predict their future maintenance. (Italicized emphasis mine.)
So, by focusing on three traits: number of children, risk taking, and bisexual behavior, these “scientists” believe they have identified a gene that “might” influence a person to be bisexual. I hate to say it, but this is not science, it is speculation.
First of all, a single gene can influence multiple traits. Thus, no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the information in this study (which they sort of back-handedly admit). Second, the study doesn’t even pretend to draw a cause and effect relationship between a person’s DNA and their sexual behavior. They report that it “may” explain something. Finally, part of the survey is purely subjective. Respondents shared their own perceptions about what they are like. It is noteworthy that the data also revealed that “the proportion of people reporting both bisexual and homosexual behavior has been rising for decades, which is probably due to growing societal openness.”
Give me a break! How in the world can they distinguish between genetic causation and social influence? Answer: They can’t!
The question now becomes: “Why are scientists doing this?” And there is a very easy answer. Based on their naturalistic worldview beliefs, they are compelled to think of reality in a particular way – that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. With that as a starting point, for them, there is no other possibility but that same-sex behavior have a natural origin – that is, some biological influence. So, they go about searching for that influence and latch on to anything that seemingly fits within their paradigm. The speculations that they end up making make perfectly good sense if their presuppositions are true. However, they are completely unable to back up their presuppositions.
In other words, they are approaching their research not based on science, but on naturalistic philosophy. As such, they specifically look for certain things, while specifically ignoring certain other things that they don’t deem relevant (things that don’t fit within their paradigm).
Now understand this, doing the research is not the problem. The problem comes about when they assert conclusions based on the research that cannot actually be backed up by scientific proof – as in this case.
As it turns out, Naturalism is a religious point of view. It is based on a person’s faith that the foundational beliefs of naturalistic philosophy are true – that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. They can’t prove that to be the case, but they believe it and do much of what they call science based upon it.
But naturalistic philosophy is not true. It can’t even be supported by the very beliefs that it asserts – that everything must be provable using the scientific method.
Naturalism simply does not reflect reality. There is a spiritual reality beyond the physical, and we can know certain things about that reality by learning what God has revealed to us in the Bible.