Cause Laws

Efficient Cause for this Discussion:
My question begins with my prior post on homosexuality. I wrote this for a discussion group because I was asked to head it. I'm also curious in the subject as my moral system believes it to be lust, lust to be a sin, so it is a sin. Sin is a will turned away from God, so I think homosexuality is turning away from God. This doesn't mean I believe the person does not seek God, I merely think that during times of acting on this position, whether thoughts or motion, is a time of turning against God. However, I see it as any other form of lust, just as when I have lustful thoughts, I have turned my thoughts away from God. That's why I fight against ideas that homosexuals should be turned away from churches or not allowed to be ordained so long as they acknowledge the sinfulness here. If I have a fat man, due to gluttony, I would still love him and back him for ordination so long as he understands I am not supporting his gluttony by loving him. I'm part of the Episcopalian tradition so this has been a major issue within our denomination for some time now. This is the cause of my interest in the topic.

Final Cause for the Discussion:
The wise man can entertain ideas. I sought out to investigate homosexuality from a scientific perspective. I've heard it supports it as "natural" from some and that there is no support from others. Most of the people have been either part of groups that are strongly anti-homosexual or had strong emotional ties to homosexuality, whether homosexuals themselves or friends with some. Personally I read the first chapter of Romans and as a Christian I say that homosexuality is due to ignorance of God both in thought and deed. This is of course if I'm reading it correctly and in accordance with tradition, which I think is correct, although this might beg the question with the schism occurring amongst some Episcopalian congregations. Honestly, I have fear if I should have found evidence that it is entirely genetically caused. This would require me to reread much and see if there is another possible explanation for such passages.

So I read and looked into articles and the research for the last 60 years. If you want to know how it went see two articles ago "Philosophical Arguments on Homosexuality." I got into a beast of an issue so I had to cut it short but I was left with the question of what do we mean when we say "nature?" I outlined several explanations and got a little into the issue before I had to leave. The whole "nature" subject became a question in itself that has continuously popped up from time to time though. My question is about the different meanings of nature and their relationship to the different types of causes, and if there are at least one that the two sides of the argument can agree upon so that discussion can be more fruitful.

Concerning the Four Causes & Science:
Francis Bacon argued for inductive reasoning being reliable for pursuing truth in the 17th century. Not that men had not done so before, he merely was the one to succeed, propelling the next few centuries of scientific progress. In his writings he says that all science is concerned with are material and efficient causes, rejecting both final and efficient causes. It wasn't until the 19th c. with Darwin's Origin of the Species that Final Causes were introduced to science via biological evolution; the idea that organisms operate to some end, optimal survival in given circumstances. The formal causes are still thought to be unnecessary, whether that means they do not exist in reality or perhaps they do but have no practical purpose or effect I know not.

Simply, modern science does not concern itself with formal causes. A classical example of a formal cause would be the idea a painter has in their mind for a piece or the blueprint an architect draws for a house. But when it comes to these ideas, plans, shematics if you will - I would wage modern science sees that these are constructs of matter and motion. Genetics. The human genome is mapped out and it is entirely physical, we can extract DNA, look at it, tamper with it, even change how a human being will turn out in some way. In summation, modern science finds that material, efficient, and final causes are enough to explain the laws of the world.

I've heard it said that formal causes can also regard some sense of morality. I have not read this Aristotle nor any other classics though I do not profess to be well read in some of the Medieval scientists on the matter of formal laws. All in all it sounds rather peculiar as the idea of forms was rigorously worked out by Plato, and although Aristotle has his issues with some of it, for the most part he seems to agree that it is the most viable option - merely that it needs tweaking in his opinion. From my own education I would disagree with this, as Plato says that the forms such as Good/Truth/Beauty are that which all things seek, making them final causes.

I realize this is all a jarbled mess. I need more time to think about this when I figure out what my question actually is.