Libs Lalor candidate: 'Homosexuality is a perversion'

I nearly choked on my toast Sunday morning when I read that the Liberal candidate for Lalor, a Pastor Peter Curtis, believes not only that homosexuality is a perversion, a position that has not been adopted in any psychological scientific sense for over 50 years, but also that Intelligent Design, the idea we were created by a higher being, namely God, should be taught alongside Darwinian Evolution in science class at high schools.

I don't really think I need to go into much detail as to why homosexuality is not a perversion, as a house plant could probably figure that one out, but I would like to explain why Pastor Curtis' views on science are a little off kilter. His argument rests in this idea that Evolution is 'a theory and not a science.' Alright, well if this was actually the case as he puts it then Intelligent Design is just a theory and not a science also, so why would either of them be taught seriously in anything other than religious studies? This however is not the real issue of his argument. He seems to think that a theory such as evolution, which is steeped in empirical scientific evidence, is on a par with ID, a theory with absolutely no empirical evidence, found only in a book written by some people anywhere between a few hundred to two thousand years ago.

Scientists use a number of methods to come to a theory. The methods used to come to the theory of evolution to explain our existence has empirical evidence attached to it. It is a theory that is not merely borne out of pure imagination, but one that best explains the phenomena using the available evidence. It also has unobservable evidence attached, such as notions of genes, theoretical entities explaining phenomena that we know to occur but cannot be seen with the naked eye or by instruments, and some philosophers of science would make the case that evidence that cannot be observed via sense experience is invalid, however many will agree that these explanations of our being in the world are true, or at the very least, adequate.

One cannot say the same for ID, which has no empirical or unobservable evidence backing it up. Let me make it clear that I am not on an anti-religious campaign, just that theories such as ID should not be placed in the same category as scientific theories. Once we start teaching ID in science class we might as well not bother with language or meaning, because science will be redundant as a term and as a field who's purpose is to get closer and closer to the truth about the world.