Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I wasn’t suggesting you were insecure. Just that sometimes your argumentation style brings out other people’s insecurity, and that may be one reason why they drop out of conversations. If someone feels like they have to spend an hour on Wikipedia and check out and read a few library books in order to be worthy of responding to your points (not saying you made them feel that way on purpose, it’s their issue) they will probably just bow out. It’s my impression that most people are pretty insecure and defensive and tend to take things more personally than was intended, and that makes communication a challenge.
It’s not the first time a doctrine has been reevaluated. Is it really that awful to say you think Christian theology is only “allowed” to say true things? I don’t think of that as imposing an unwarranted hierarchy of science over theology so much as applying the definition of Christian theology. Theology is the pursuit of the truth about God and his actions in the world. By definition, it can’t assert demonstrably false things. That’s not telling theology what it’s allowed to do, it’s being coherent. So yes, if traditional doctrine asserts that women are less human than men or Africans are less human than Europeans and we come to believe that is demonstrably false, we “veto” the traditional thought on the matter. I understand primageniture is more central and reevaluating it creates bigger theological waves, and the whole thing should be approached with appropriate caution and humility. I understand not everyone accepts that the traditional doctrine is demonstrably false. But no, I don’t agree that just because a pattern of thought has a long tradition in the church, it can never be “vetoed” by something true.
I think the discussion of sovereignty is important and interesting. But it will inevitably involve some conjecture and lack of clarity, because there is a lot about sovereignty that is not clear from Scripture. And unlike science which has continually developing avenues of investigation, theology has a finite revelation and a finite tradition. So there should be room in the discussion for people to admit that their way of conceiving things and relating an objective discipline to a subjective discipline is not airtight. Pretty much every attempt to describe sovereignty consistently will fall apart somewhere under scrutiny.
Good point. Though sometimes easier said than done. And a lot of time the conversation derails on the definitions.
Sorry. 
You could see if Brad can make it a new topic. I agree that we need a more robust conception of sovereignty than the ones that are currently available.
@GJDS The discussions of how random is still subject to sovereignty have hurt my brain sometimes. I think the word is used in different senses too often and it muddies the waters a bit. It seems to me there is random as a mathematical term (not able to be predicted by us) and random as a naturalistic philosophical claim (not controlled by God) and it is not always clear in what sense the word random is being used by a particular writer or commenter.
Yes, I think so too.
Yes, that is my understanding too.