From: clarkk@nosc.mil (Kevin D. Clark)
Subject: Totally Unrelated Drivel....
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:10:32 GMT

 Skeptics:

 I ran into two possibly interesting topics of discussion in the past few days
 and was curious what type of feedback they might generate on this newsgroup.
 They are totally unrelated to one another, so maybe this is a breach of net
 etiquette...I am wearing asbestos briefs if the need to incinerate me arises.

 1. On a recent weekday afternoon, I was madly channel-hopping, a habit my wife
    despises vehemently, and happened upon a "talk-show" with a host named
    Montel Williams.  I have seen advertisements for his show frequently, but
    I don't know if it is only local or more widespread.  Anyway, the show was
    about identical twins and what life was like for them.  They had about
    eight or nine pairs of twins onstage and more in the audience and they
    asked numerous questions of virtually no interest to the world in general
    (IMHO of course) such as "Did you ever take tests for each other in
    college?" and "Did you ever date each other's dates?".  During the course
    of the questioning one pair of gentleman revealed that one of them was gay
    and one was straight.  Mr. Williams dropped the ball and glossed over that
    topic with a "...that's interesting...." type of response and went on to
    other more "important" questions.  

    My question for those of you more informed than me is (and perhaps I will
    reveal some ignorance here) is there a general consensus at this point in
    time whether homosexuality is biological or environmental or a combination
    of both in origin?  I vaguely recall reading that someone had discovered
    that one or more brain structures in homosexuals were different than in
    heterosexuals...but I can't recall hearing about any following research.
    It seems to me (and I'm admittedly no expert) that if twins are genetically
    identical (and here I may be wrong also) and had been raised in the same
    environment that they would both be gay or straight...if sexual preference
    is biologically inherited or environmentally imposed.  Looking at this from
    a surface perspective, this would appear to support the case of those who
    believe that sexual preference is a choice.  Now I realize that I'm 
    simplifying things to huge extent and making black and white distinctions
    where there may be only grays, but I'm curious...so enlighten me.

    (For those who may wish to know, the show was aired on Friday 25 September
     and the two men referred to were Brian and Bruce Van Allen.  I tuned in
     halfway through the show, so I know no other particulars.)

 2. For those of you who may not have seen it yet, Time magazine just sent out
    a special issue called "Beyond the Year 2000-What to Expect in the New
    Millenium".  Apparently, various writers were solicited to "predict" what
    life will be like over the next thousand years.  Each article covers a
    different aspect of society and culture.  I just received my copy last
    night and only flipped through it, but one article caught my attention
    because it hits on a topic that voraciously devours much bandwidth on this
    newsgroup.  The article is titled "Kingdoms to Come" and discusses briefly
    what religion and faith might be like in 2092.  The author is Richard N.
    Ostling and I have no idea who he is and where he came by his "insights".
    Perhaps someone out there knows of him?  Anyway, the article describes a
    world where religion is somewhat similar to that of today with the
    so-called mainstream religions (Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism,
    Hinduism, etc) still strong, but the smaller sects having dwindled to
    almost nonexistence.  The paragraph that I thought would be most
    interesting to this group, however, was the final one which includes the
    statements "The end of atheism and agnosticism became inevitable as soon as
    computer calculations made improbable the odds that random natural
    selection could be the sole explanation for the ever increasing intricacies
    found in biology.  Equally influential was the discovery of multiple
    universes, which astronomers found at the macrocosmic level and physicists
    detected in the microcosmic.  Science thus established the current Age of
    Faith, re-creating the Creator.  Nowadays, only the fool says in his heart,
    'There is no God.'" (pg 61-any typos mine).  

    Since this quote relates so well to many of the topics which appear on
    this newsgroup, I felt to compelled to ask: Is this a probable future for
    us?  Is it likely that science may usher in a new Age of Faith over the
    next thousand years?  Again curiousity may be my downfall, but I am amply
    equipped with flame-retardant garments so let me have it....

Spooner (I speak only for those foolish enough to pay me to speak for them and
	 so far I've had no takers....)