In a laughably mistitled piece, More Solid Science to Debunk the Gender Bender Idealogues, Bill Muehlenberg once again makes a complete and utter fool of himself when it comes to the subject of science.
In his piece, he plays what he thinks is a trump card, in that two "scientists" have "published" a "paper" in a "science journal" that claims that human sexuality is not innate. Therefore, the witless Muehlenberg concludes, it's proven once and for all beyond a shadow of a doubt that gay people choose to be gay, and therefore his bile, vitriol and hate towards the minority is entirely justified and they should be stripped of all civil rights.
Muehlenberg is so stupid and ignorant when it comes to science that it's truly mindboggling, and disentangling reality from the fantasy of his thought-processes is quite a challenge.
First of all, as it inevitably turns out, the "scientists" have repeatedly been discredited. Paul McHugh is already infamous for pushing a dubious homophobic agenda, and it turns out he is a conservative Christian. Surprise, surprise. His previous "studies" have been derided by the scientific community for their attempts to prove his own homophobic beliefs. McHugh has described transgender as a "mental disorder", and is notorious for his far-right bigoted beliefs, so unfortunately he has not been able to keep his prejudices outside of his research, which makes his "science" dubious to say the least.
You can read here and here about what is wrong with this dishonest pair's "research" (and the fact that The New Atlantis is not a scientific journal, which means their findings won't even be peer-reviewed).
The reason for writing this is to expose Muehlenberg's idiocy when it comes to science. Here is something alleging to be a scientific paper with a conclusion that Muehlenberg agrees with. Therefore, Muehlenberg says, it's proven that being gay is a choice. Case closed.
No, Muehlenberg, that's not what science is, and not how science works. There is no "proof" here. If this was a genuine scientific paper, it would be peer-reviewed, where other scientists in the field assess the strengths and weaknesses of the paper and refine the working hypotheses. Like I say, The New Atlantic isn't a proper scientific journal, so no scientists will waste their time peer-reviewing this disreputable duo's paper, which goes against the scientific consensus without adding anything new or of value.
Secondly, Muehlenberg is more than happy to submit to the authority of science when it suits his homophobic agenda. "See, look, real scientists say being gay is a choice, so that must be true." Yet when the overwhelming scientific consensus finds something that Muehlenberg disagrees with - evolution, say, or climate change - all of a sudden science has no authority, offers no proof, and is entirely wrong, and the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept the reality of evolution and climate change are simply "pushing an agenda".
There's a word for people like Muehlenberg, who want to pick and choose when science is true and when it's not. It begins with "H" and ends with "YPOCRITE".
Muehlenberg's not the only one. All the right-wing anti-science nutjobs under the sun - you know - the type of swivel-eyed ignoramuses who tell us the earth is only 6,000 years old, have suddenly found a new respect for science, because of this fatuous publication. They, like Muehlenberg, prove what hypocritical ignoramuses they really are. Again, no real surprises there.