A few years ago, PBS released an exceptional seven-hour NOVA series, Genius, an exploration of the lives and works of Newton, Galileo, Darwin and Einstein, whose insightful minds have carried humankind on unbelievable journeys where others feared to venture, here on earth and in the starry heavens.

Galileo‘s Battle for the Heavens: We touched on the works of Galileo in Galileo’s Moon. Contrary to the then prevailing view, supported by scripture as well as Aristotle, that the Earth was the immobile center of the universe, Galileo’s telescopic observations in the early 1600’s supported Copernicus‘s idea of a heliocentric Solar System. Tried in 1633 and found guilty of being “vehemently suspect of heresy,” it was not until October 1993, when Pope John Paul II admitted the Inquisition‘s errors, that Galileo was finally vindicated. In the end, the Church agreed with Galileo that when there is an apparent conflict between faith and reason, it is man’s interpretation of the tenets and writings of faith that error, not the findings of science and reason. In frustration, Galileo penned in the margins of his forbidden work, The Dialogue of the Two Chief World Systems: “Take note theologians, you run the risk of some day having to condemn as heretics those who would declare as you now do that the earth stands still.”

Newton’s Dark Secret: Newton was born in 1642, the year of Galileo’s death. Described by his biographers as the “Once in 500 Years Genius” Newton conceived of the Universal Law of Gravitation and invented calculus to, among things, assist him in calculating the orbits of the planets. His Philosophiae Naturalis Princilia Mathematica underlies most classical mathematics today. His driving objective was to understand the “truth of God;” for him, religion and science were inseparable and God could not be read out of the Universe. He said, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” Newton’s concept of a Universe based on understandable “Natural Laws” provided a conceptual foundation for the Age of Enlightenment, influencing Jefferson and our Founding Fathers.

Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Darwin’s breakthrough observations in the Galapagos lead to his “Origin of the Species”, about evolution and “natural selection.” The work, particularly, Darwin’s conclusion that man is a part of nature and evolved from lower species, created religious controversy that lingers today [it’s worth noting that the Pope’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences released its Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life [pdf] in 2008], which begins with a statement from the Holy Father Benedict XVI:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

Einstein’s Big Idea: Einstein’s fascination with light led in 1905 to his “general theory of relativity,” and the most famous scientific formula of all time: “Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.”

Before Einstein’s time, it was believed that matter and energy were different, not subject to the same laws of the Universe. His remarkable insight was that matter is but the condensation of energy. Einstein‘s work not only changed our concept of the Universe, but led to a better understanding of light as particles and as waves, as well as nuclear energy. However, he could not resolve his unifying theory with the apparent irrationality of quantum mechanics and physics. In frustration, he opined, “God does not play with dice.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

Our minds can be powerful tools for creative insight and decision-making. At one time philosophers saw us as being born a “blank slate.” Thanks to cognitive science, we now know that our minds are wired from birth and although experiences and learning are vital to our outcomes [probably 40% of the result], the DNA and genes we inherit shape the outer limits of our mental and physical agility and our propensities. When it comes to propensities, some minds favor science, others business; some mathematics, others music – a wide variety of possibilities. Today, there is growing recognition that humans have “multiple intelligences,” such as spatial, linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intra personal and naturalistic. Cognitive scientist Howard Gardner writes in his Intelligence Reframed:

The human mind is better thought of as a series of relatively separate faculties, with only loose and non-predictable relationship with one another, than a single, all-purpose machine that performs steadily at a certain horsepower, independent of the content and context.

Within each intelligence arena of the possible the combination of our DNA and gene wiring provides a range of strengths and weaknesses to be shaped by our experiences, resulting is wide varieties of performance capabilities.

How our skills and propensities within an intelligence arena measure against others within the same arena is reflected statistically by the “Bell Curve.” At one end of the curve are the few who are the highest performers – like Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein. At the other end are the few who are the lowest performers. Spread out within the middle crest are the rest of us, “cursed” with being average. [An extensive, but controversial, study of intelligence was written in 1994 by Herrnstein and Murray, The Bell Curve.]

The distribution illustrated by the Bell Curve is the “normal distribution,” although the Curve is often skewed more toward the high or low end than our illustration, as pointed out in The Norm of Normality of Individual Performance, where the researchers conclude the performance outcomes for individual work-performers are inflated and skewed by a small group of elite performers.

Intelligence and work performance are not the only human characteristics measured by the Bell Curve. Consider speed. Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world, running the 100 meters in 9.58 seconds. Certainly, our genes aren’t quite like Usain Bolt’s genes and his genes have tweaks other champion sprinters wish they had. He has an unusually high percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers, which produce his explosive speed and make him the elite performer – far out front on the Bell Curve.

Let’s return to our four geniuses and consider something else measurable on the Bell Curve: Sexual Preferences.

Darwin was a devoted family man. Galileo fathered four children out of wedlock. Einstein, known for his 300 scientific papers, could also peak our curiosity with a study of his extra-curricular love life.

What about Newton, perhaps the greatest genius of all time?

Newton never married and never had a romantic involvement with a woman as an adult. Between 1663 and 1683, Newton and John Wickens (who helped Newton with his alchemy experiments) roomed together. Their relationship terminated abruptly, and in 1689 Newton formed an intense relationship with Swiss mathematician Nicholas Fatio de Duillier, which ended in 1693, at the same time Newton suffered a nervous breakdown. Newton was fiercely protective of his privacy and for the most part his personal life remains hidden to this day, but his correspondence with de Duillier suggests their feelings for each other were romantic. De Dulillier wrote Newton:

I could wish sir to live all my life, or the greatest part of it, with you.

In this world some of us need a digital stop watch to catch our speed, some of us can be clocked merely by turning the page of a calendar and the rest of us are somewhere in between. Furthermore, some of us are really smart, some of us are not so smart, and the rest of us are somewhere in between.

So it should not be shocking that our genes that give us our sexual preferences should likewise fit us along the slopes of a Bell Curve. Contrary to the outrageous ravings of some that “God hates fags,” the genes that shaped Newton’s preferences at the far end of the Bell Curve slope from “macho” come from the same Heavenly Source as genes that shaped Einstein’s “macho” preferences. Those preferences had nothing to do with their contributions to mankind, their belief in God or their humanity.

What’s becoming increasingly clear from studies of DNA and the human gene pool is that our genes are the “deck of cards” we are dealt at birth, and we simply don’t have much choice when it comes to the outer reaches of our abilities and preferences, including our sexual preferences. To assume to the contrary is to substitute pseudo-science for science and ignore Einstein’s “God does not play with dice,” and Newton’s “God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” Or worse, causes us to fall into the trap predicted by Galileo,“Take note theologians, you run the risk of some day having to condemn as heretics those who would declare as you now do that …”

Invest an hour, listen to Matthew Vines. If not, at least read “The Bible and homosexuality— an eye-opening speech,” or the New York Times article, Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay ‘Cure.’

Darwin closed his Descent of Man with a “Conclusion” that includes:

False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science.

Let us not be guilty of suffocating reality with beliefs we have converted to false facts. It would be a shame if we missed the Touch of Genius that could be provided by the next Newton. Doing so would reject a precious Gift From the Heavens.