Recently on an NPR show, a science writer talked about a book he wrote called, “Doubt is their product.” The book is mostly about how industry scientists working with Bush Administration political appointees promote bad science, or exaggerate the weaknesses of other scientific work in order to create some superficial sense of doubt that can justify delaying or not addressing polution concerns, product safety, clean air or clean water, etc. Most of these scientists and the PR firms used to work for Big Tobacco.

The whole time I was listening to this, I couldn’t help but think of Throckmorton. This is exactly what he does on the whole ex-gay front. He produces no convincing evidence that anyone can change their sexual orientation, yet jumps up and down if someone says that it just can’t be done. He doesn’t produce any convincing evidence that sexual orientation is the product of nurture, but jumps up and down and says that you haven’t proven that it is absolutely biological (although more and more evidence is accumulating to support biology, while none appears to support nurture).

Throckmorton is just like the lead character in “Thank you for smoking.” The only difference is that Throckmorton’s product is ex-gay therapy rather than Marlboro’s.

It also ignores the obvious fact that religion can be a very good source of IMMORALITY, since many of the ancient stories in the Bible condone things that are now considered abhorrent: rape, slavery, polygamy, religious intolerance, treating women like property, killing homosexuals, committing genocide… Religion has been used to justify all sorts of immoral atrocities throughout history, including slavery and subsequent segregation in the U.S. Today millions of religious people continue to preach homophobia and transphobia.

For the record Mr. Throckmorton, it’s not “science” that directs my morality, it’s my own experiences and judgments, and the way I feel about the facts and the evidence of their consequences. Only scientific inquiry can provide those facts in the first place. Without science, I would not have the reliable information necessary to make reasonable, compassionate judgments about the world and my place in it.

I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that “science” itself can be a source of morality.