Quote Originally Posted by Bruce
I grow

increasingly amazed at the parallel between religious and scientific dogma and their common antithesis,

truth.

** Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly

true.
The final paragraphs of my review:

ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Rarely do

sex researchers address the ongoing philosophical debate between canonical neo-Darwinism and Biblical creation.

Perhaps this is because any debate between scientific theory and religion arises from distinctly different domains

of cognitive thought. Does the acceptance of Darwin’s theory represent the glorification of Science pitted against

religion, or is it a means by which Science and religion might be integrated? Integration of Science and religion

might be achieved by recognizing that the key components of this olfactory/pheromonal model appear to be as

irreducibly complex as the basic tenets of evolution and the basic tenets of religion.
From an evolutionary

perspective, highly conserved GnRH peptide ligand/receptor signaling mechanisms are the molecular biochemical

mechanisms for sexual reproduction in all organisms. These signaling mechanisms also appear to play an integral

role in the development of sexual preferences. From a religious perspective, these signaling mechanisms dictate

that the creation of life, which begets life, also allows for the creation of diversified life through the same

mechanisms. These mechanisms allow life to recognize the difference between self and non-self and to respond to

this difference.
Perhaps the creation of diversified human life gave us the ability to recognize differences

between our sexual behavior and the sexual behavior of others. Since all life does not beget diversified life, those

who judge sexual preferences that do not seem to result in diversified life may be judging creation itself.


It is easy to understand how someone could judge a particular sexual preference, without thought. Unconscious

affects that are manifest in the development of human sexual preferences are, by their nature, a part of diversified

life that few people think about. What we think about human sexual preferences becomes less meaningful when we

realize that most of sexual behavior is not what we cognitively think it should be. Indeed, the largest contributor

to sexual preferences that are manifest in the sexual behavior of any species appears to be unconscious affect.

This also appears to be the basis for diversified life.


-------------------------------------------------------------

From its inception, I thought this Forum

was about responding to differences in pheromones: how, why, when. I am a scientific authority on that topic, and

have expressed my opinions, scientifically (with references) and unscientifically (without references). I've never

claimed any other expertise (e.g., philosophy, mathmatics, theology, or social science). And I have never claimed to

know the truth about anything. Instead I've either invited debate or participated in debate. I now think that the

Forum has changed its purpose, and that it does not lend itself either to debate or to the discovery of any

truth.

JVK
The Mind's Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience and Male Sexual Preferences