Print
What I Think About Evolution
by Sam Brownback
Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?th&emc=th
In our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not "believe" in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.
The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.
The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.
The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.
There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.
Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.
Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man's origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.
Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?th&emc=th
In our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not "believe" in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.
The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.
The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.
The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.
There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.
Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.
Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man's origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.
Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 143 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #46508 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 2:14 pm
What I like about this site is I know I can just sit back and watch this get torn to pieces :-) Other Comments by BaronOchs
3. Comment #46509 by CJ22 on May 31, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Doesn't want to alienate his core voters, doesn't want to look like a dimwit. Other Comments by CJ22
4. Comment #46510 by nrvous on May 31, 2007 at 2:17 pm
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.
I am always mystified by those who accept the facts of evolution but still try to claim divine causality. In a way, I have more respect for those who simply cling to insisting that Genesis is all literally true. Why, after all, would God go to all the trouble of creating some sort of primordial sludge in order to spawn simple microbes and then algae, fungi, arthropods, etc. etc. all the way up through dinosaurs then mass exttinction followed by the agonizingly slow trudge to mankind (and everything else we see around us). Why would he not simply wave his magic wand and *ping* instant Special Chosen Organism!
(And, respectufully, Sen. Brownback, yes we do have a unique place in the world. And so does everything else.)
Other Comments by nrvous
5. Comment #46511 by The Buxter on May 31, 2007 at 2:21 pm
"Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."Just sad... plain sad!
Especially because of the beginning of the article - for a moment I thought he was going to accept science, and put on the old "science and religion covers different aspects of life" cliché. Instead he just used it to reject evolution anyway. Guess I should have seen it comming, when he said that ofcourse he believe in micro-evolution.
Sometimes I'm glad I live in Europe...
Other Comments by The Buxter
6. Comment #46512 by BAEOZ on May 31, 2007 at 2:23 pm
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome
What's that logical fallacy where your conclusion is included in the proposition?
Other Comments by BAEOZ
7. Comment #46513 by Fedler on May 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm
The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.(empasis added)
There MUST be a god, there MUST be a god, there MUST be a god... (repeat ad nauseum until you believe it).
Oh, dear Senator Brownback. Seeking to get votes from both sides of the campaign trail you have really shot yourself in the foot (what's left of it at least). I wonder, Senator, how you know that the material order and the spiritual order were 'created' by a god? Theologians and atheists alike have been searching for the evidence. Good thing it's found in politics.
As science continues to explore the details of man's origin, faith can do its part as well.
Sure, just don't expect us to call it science or based on fact.
Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Which basically means you're right, as long as you owe it all to religion and God. Thanks, Senator. You lost my vote. Oh, wait, that would imply you had it to begin with.
On behalf of most Americans, I would like to apologize on behalf of Senator Brownback for being such a moron. His statement is so full of presuppositions. Yes, he's from THE Kansas, the one and the same.
Other Comments by Fedler
8. Comment #46515 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm
BAEOZ I think it's "Begging the Question" Other Comments by BaronOchs
9. Comment #46516 by troodon on May 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm
"In our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves."Hey Sam, that was a good start. It's just the other 832 words of un-fossilized coprolite....
Other Comments by troodon
10. Comment #46517 by mnmnj on May 31, 2007 at 2:26 pm
"Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."Hmmm, so it is okay to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, just as long as you don't say the Earth isn't the center of the universe?
Other Comments by mnmnj
11. Comment #46518 by Quetzalcoatl on May 31, 2007 at 2:26 pm
So basically, anything that proves man is special he accepts, otherwise, not interested.The learned Senator speaks of dignity and humility, but fails to realise that the most dignified thing Humanity can do is to accept the fact that it is nothing special, and treat itself and the world accordingly.
Instead he resorts to extravagant double-speak. It's sad, in a way.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
12. Comment #46519 by BAEOZ on May 31, 2007 at 2:28 pm
BAEOZ I think it's "Begging the Question"
There's a lot of that from religious types....
Hey Sam, that was a good start. It's just the other 832 words of un-fossilized coprolite....
I wonder if he's a coprophage?
Other Comments by BAEOZ
13. Comment #46520 by Hip_Priest on May 31, 2007 at 2:30 pm
My favourite response so far:Sam Brownback talking about evolutionary biology. That's a bit like saying: "Here's Paris Hilton talking about partial differential equations"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmMzNTY1YWJlOTZjMjAzYWFlMzE2Zjc5NzcxMGY1NDI=http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmMzNTY1YWJlOTZjMjAzYWFlMzE2Zjc5NzcxMGY1NDI=
Other Comments by Hip_Priest
14. Comment #46521 by mr_sneed on May 31, 2007 at 2:31 pm
and this guy is running for president???? You have got to be kidding!!! I hear he washes the feet of other church goers,what a nut!! Other Comments by mr_sneed
15. Comment #46523 by krogercomplete on May 31, 2007 at 2:34 pm
One of the best examples I've seen of assuming God to be true and then reasoning forward from that. The quintessence of open-mindedness: I am happy to consider all the evidence. . .to the extent that it does not conflict with my assumption about God. Some good quotes below."The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God."
". . .using the gift of reason that God has given us."
"Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology."
". . .many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality."
". . .the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science."
"The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose."
"Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. . .aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected . . ."
I'm all for science; it can tell us some wonderful things about the world. But everyone knows that God created the universe, so any aspect of science that conflicts with that obvious truth can easily be dismissed. So much for moving from evidence to conclusion.
Other Comments by krogercomplete
16. Comment #46525 by Luthien on May 31, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
We should all email this man with the dictionary definition of confirmation bias...
...in fact, this should be added to the dictionary as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Other Comments by Luthien
17. Comment #46526 by LeeLeeOne on May 31, 2007 at 2:43 pm
hmmm...."Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas."
Kansas.... hmmmm ....
Can you say "Intelligent Design?" A JP degree does not automatically give the recipient common sense.
Are his the ancestors from the German Reformed Church of Pennsylvania?
Can you say fundamentalism?
Other Comments by LeeLeeOne
18. Comment #46527 by ricey on May 31, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Written by Brownback's press agent to appeal to his congregation - the voters. Whether or not he believes this stuff is beside the point.Damage limitation for the thinking sector of the electorate that were shocked when he put his hand up to say he didn't believe in evolution.
Shameless political jargon.
Other Comments by ricey
19. Comment #46528 by room101 on May 31, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Idiot...this is one of our presidential candidates, mind you...Anyway, I hope what Jon Stewart said is true (during a segment on "The Daily Show" that featured these 3 nitwits raising their hands when asked who didn't believe in evolution).
"In case you missed it, raising their hands were Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee. They will be missed."
Other Comments by room101
20. Comment #46529 by phoucault on May 31, 2007 at 2:51 pm
To think I live in this guy's state...At my high school the vast majority of kids think along the lines of Brownback: Not Genesis, but divine causality. However, I suppose it was their blatant stupidity that drive me to reading Dawkins. Perhaps there is a God!
Other Comments by phoucault
21. Comment #46530 by Mash on May 31, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table
I'm extremely curious what people of faith can bring to the table. Bible lines? A how-not-to-do-it? Tea?
I can't see them being anything else than annoying--
Other Comments by Mash
22. Comment #46531 by Hip_Priest on May 31, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Those aspects ofOther Comments by Hip_Priest
23. Comment #46532 by Shuggy on May 31, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.So when science and religion do conflict, you'll cling to religion and oppose science? You are the Weakest Link, Goodbye!
I hear he washes the feet of other church goers,what a nut!!Aww, that's rather sweet. I warm to him a little on hearing that. (They - usually - only do it in the week before Easter, because it's something they believe Jesus did, if he lived. It's a gesture, not serious foot-hygiene. If he did it every Sunday I'd be concerned.)
Other Comments by Shuggy
24. Comment #46533 by Bookman on May 31, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Sen. Brownback has (sadly) proved himself to be perfectly qualified for the job of President of the United States. How is he any different from Reagan or George W. Bush?Other Comments by Bookman
25. Comment #46536 by mmurray on May 31, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order.
Leaving aside the accident question -- he should read Stephen J Goulds book about the Burgess Shale but maybe he doesn't believe in fossils -- what is this rubbish about a unique likeness. Hasn't he ever seen an ape or a chimp ? Why do we share so much DNA with other living things ? Even if you just look at the human skeleton and the skeleton of most other mammals (eg whales) you can see the similarities: two legs, two arms, five fingers/thumbs at the edge of each leg and arm ...
What a load of rubbish. The NYTimes should be ashamed to allow this to be published. Would they publish a similar article questioning chemistry versus alchemy, astronomy versus astrology?
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
26. Comment #46539 by PeterK on May 31, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Clownful blatherings.Other Comments by PeterK
27. Comment #46540 by PaulJ on May 31, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him.It's a mystery....
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.Evidence? No, of course I'm not going to look at the evidence. I've already made up my mind.
I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.Because if that wasn't the case (God forbid...) I wouldn't be important.
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.Or in other words, I'm in favour of any scientific inquiry that doesn't come up with results that might contradict what I already know to be true.
This is the most awful, closed-minded trash I've seen in, oh, days.
Other Comments by PaulJ
28. Comment #46543 by mnlandon on May 31, 2007 at 3:32 pm
The good thing is that the improbability of him getting elected is about as large as the improbability of a divine creator.Other Comments by mnlandon
29. Comment #46544 by Donald on May 31, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I thought it was a well written defence - grammatical and smoothly coherent through the blatantly circular and subversive reasoning.I wonder who wrote it for him.
Other Comments by Donald
30. Comment #46545 by scottishgeologist on May 31, 2007 at 3:37 pm
"because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God"He obviously takes it as axiomatic that God exists. No question about it. No debate. Zilch. All else springs from that. Why? Because it just is - here, I 've got the learned journal itself, the Bible.......
Brownback? Like is he into scat or what?
And as for that foot washing stuff, hey now we're talking. That hot little redhead in the front pew, dangling her high heel shoe on her dainty crimson painted nylon covered toes.... f***, I'd do more than just wash her feet....
Actually, this fetishistic practice deserves an entire thread, or maybe even forum to itself. Charismatic evangie types are really into it. Here is a particularly grim pic of it:
http://www.new-wine-scotland.org/IMG_1923.JPG
"Wendy gets her feet washed" is the caption.
And this particularly un-appetising incident happened as part of an evangie delusion-fest, mere yards from Scotlands most ancient and revered academic institution.....
http://www.new-wine-scotland.org/default.htm
Grim, absolutely grim....
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
31. Comment #46546 by Filius Nithardi on May 31, 2007 at 3:44 pm
@Hip_PriestThose aspects of electrostatic induction theory compatible with the truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine the truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an a-zeus-ic theology posing as science.
Haha, that totally cracked me up!
Other Comments by Filius Nithardi
32. Comment #46547 by CruciFiction on May 31, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Well, I'm just sick to death of hearing from those faith-heads who try to always square the circle for the rest of us in respect to reason v. faith.Brownback's piece is more irrational pathetic nonsense of word-babble that would make any theologian proud. This irrational defense of irrational religious faith reminded me of the excellent debate with Peter Atkins [in March 2007] where he asserted, more than once, that religion serves only the "why" question, which in fact is totally useless to us -- and that ALL "why" questions can better be, and should always be, rephrased as "how" questions. I strongly concur.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,777,Debate-between-Alister-McGrath-and-Peter-Atkins,AtheistDebateorg
Some of my favorite author quotes on "faith":
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill." ~ H.L. Mencken, New York Times Magazine, 11 September 1955
"Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail." ~ Sam Harris
"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)
"Faith is the antithesis of proof." ~ NY State Supreme Court Justice Edward J. Greenfield, 1995
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." ~ Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] (1835-1910)
"Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind." ~ Rev. Donald Morgan (b. 1933)
"Faith," said St. Paul, "is the evidence of things not seen." We should elaborate this definition by adding that faith is the assertion of things for which there is not a particle of evidence and of things which are incredible." ~ E. Haldeman-Julius
"Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith." - Unknown
"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." ~ Dan Barker
"Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." ~ George Seaton
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." ~ Richard Dawkins
Other Comments by CruciFiction
33. Comment #46548 by baal on May 31, 2007 at 3:54 pm
"Atheistic theology" - what an oxymoron!Other Comments by baal
34. Comment #46549 by polishrequiem on May 31, 2007 at 3:54 pm
What utter driveling nonsense. Way to write over a thousand years to say absolutely NOTHING about evolution.1. If you look at the tenets of science and faith they are bound to overlap and cause problems for one another no matter Gould's NOMA. Science asks questions and gets the answer from the universe (as Lawrence Krauss can't stop saying) and faith puts the cart of divinity before the horse of questions. Brownback came to the table with the answer and sadly, they contradict eachother.
2. The best people of faith can do (Collins, Miller) is compartmentalize. It's at best a little deception and at worst, as in Brownback's case, a lie.
3. I can't really agree more that we all have special places in the world. It is fundamental that we love and respect the dignity of individuals. In no way does the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection say that we are neither special or not unique. In fact, because of evolutionary biology and biochemistry, we know that we are all unique. It's not just an appearance but a fact. Our genomes are entirely our own. They are not just our dad's or mom's. They are a new iteration, a new ripple in a new part of the amazing river of life that sprang from the earth billions of years ago, a river that proceeds inexorably, if messily, along the surface of time on our little planet.
And Brownback is in a way correct that we were willed into existence, but not in the way he wants to believe we were. Our parents created us, some of us more deliberately than others (hey accidents happen). But we didn't select the sperm that fertilized the egg. That sperm's unique position, timing, and biochemical print made that possible. But that sperm was randomly generated among billions of others in a man's testicles. Why be so wasteful with all of those other sperm? If God wills it to be, couldn't he have been a little bit more efficient? The average male ejaculates 250,000,000 sperm. Most intercourse doesn't result in conception either. I'm glad God wasn't the engineer for my car, it would get 1 mile for 250,000,000 gallons.
Anyway, I wrote a massive blog about this today if anyone wants to read it.
http://formsmostbeautiful.blogspot.com/2007/05/so-what-does-sam-brownback-think-of.html
Other Comments by polishrequiem
35. Comment #46551 by amazeen on May 31, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Never underestimate the power of denial. Other Comments by amazeen
36. Comment #46553 by js5535 on May 31, 2007 at 4:04 pm
[quote]Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table.
[/quote]
Yes, we should invite Norse neo-pagans from Iceland to 'the table'. I'm sure their creation myths are wonderful too.
[quote]
Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
[/quote]
Kind of like the way Galileo contradicted the Book of Joshua.
This mans unwavering faith is disgusting, and dangerous. He has even stated that his views will not change, no matter what the evidence. No doubt everything in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, and astronomy that is not in line with his beliefs becomes part of the evil atheist conspiracy.
Other Comments by js5535
37. Comment #46554 by Nails on May 31, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Loser.Does this mean that, regardless of what his advisors tell him (assuming he gets voted into office) then he will consult god first?
Will he have a priest on stand-by to check verse and scripture?
"Mr President, we need to increase taxes to fund xyz"
"What do you think vicar, would god want us to do this? Is there anything we can learn from jesus to guide us?"
Other Comments by Nails
38. Comment #46556 by _J_ on May 31, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Fuckwit.Anyone who so easily abuses words like 'reason' and who posits his personal assumptions ('the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God'; 'man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos'; and so on) as part of the unquestionable framework surrounding all discussion should simply not be allowed into a position of responsibility. Not a senator, not local councillor, not a school teacher.
You don't have to be an atheist to cut through the bullshit thinking here. Just trying to follow the logic impartially pulls it all apart. The man's head is so far up his arse he's looking at us through his mouth.
Ken Ham's museum of creationism should include a big glass case in which all politicians infected by this brainrot can form a sort of alter-government. They can be neatly labelled as the Administration Created in God's Image and left to gibber inanities at one another until their air runs out.
'What I Think About Evolution'. That's a laugh.
Fuckwit, fuckwit, fuckwit.
Other Comments by _J_
39. Comment #46557 by MIND_REBEL on May 31, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Faith is another word for stupid. Could religious people get any dumber? Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
40. Comment #46558 by sgr79 on May 31, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Everything I was going to say got covered already, especially by mnmnj and Quetzalcoatl in posts 10+11... awww, we humans absolutely HAVE to be SO special, and so we MUST be the center of all of what must be godly creation (what happened to humility there?)!Thanks to CruciFiction for the great quotes (and also because your webname made me smile after a harsh day at work).
Cheers to all (except Brownback)!
:-)
Other Comments by sgr79
41. Comment #46559 by diamat1 on May 31, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.
Yes but how did it happen. It gets ridiculous when you try to put up an hypothesis. Charles Darwin ridiculed species creation this way:
did supporters of creationism
"really believe that at innumerable periods in the earth's history certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissue?"
Other Comments by diamat1
42. Comment #46561 by darwin2 on May 31, 2007 at 4:37 pm
The bottom line is that Sam Brownback raised his hand to confirm that he did not believe in evolution. This scares me and I would not want him elected President of my country. However I do believe in Intelligent Design and I do believe in One Supreme Being who designed and created our universe and all other universes that may exist. However I believe that Darwin was correct about evolution and natural selection and I believe God used these tools to create all life forms on our planet and in our universe.Other Comments by darwin2
43. Comment #46562 by Big T on May 31, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Besides "Begging the Question" I believe that logical fallacy is also called "Assuming the Answer". As in, you assume God exists before you begin to examine the evidence. One of the tools in Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" in my favorite among his books, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark".Other Comments by Big T
44. Comment #46563 by CJ on May 31, 2007 at 4:41 pm
It's 00:29 in the morning in the UK when I finished reading this. I've just come in from a great night out with some old mates I haven't seen for years. Had skin full of beer and then I made the mistake of logging on. Oh my fucking God! What the hell is this guy on? The idiocy is just stunning. How can such an asshole even get airtime as a presidential candidate, it utterly beggars' the mind! I knew more about evolution and the use and role of science when I was 14 and that's 33 years ago. Well I'll leave now and answer properly when sober tomorrow, good night/ good morning as appropriate :-)[Edit]
Well its 8:24 now so good morning from this time zone, I'm now sober with a 4/10 hangover, you know not so much painful as muzzy headed. Read the article again and yep it's still a pile of poo!
Ok so what would I say to this guy if he had a brain worth engaging with? Well let's get a definition in first. Faith as used in this contest I take to mean blind religious faith not the rational faith one can have in the scientific method with its demonstrably effective processes, checks and balances.
In our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not "believe" in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.
I agree with this bit in that media dumbing down doesn't help to bring true understanding of any subject.
The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days.
The premise here is did God do it or not. If you invoke God then the time and method become irrelevant because God is the ultimate trump card and excuses any scientifically invalid proposition.
But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.
There is no complexity in the relationship between science, faith and reason. If you subscribe to faith you deny reason and as reason is the foundation of science you consequently deny science. Belief in science or faith is mutually exclusive. I know there are people who do straddle this fence but I along with RD see them as, to a greater or lesser extent, deluded. For some personal reason they must feel they have to live in this strange state of limbo to reconcile some fundamental fear of a godless reality.
The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two.
As already said faith and reason are mutually exclusive positions so in reality are completely separate anyway. The contradiction is built into the very fabric of the language for everyone to see.
The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.
Again the delusion (trump card) of God is played to excuse the irrationality of religion faith. Spiritual truth in the sense of explaining demonstrable reality is an oxymoron. Sam Harris tackles the effect of altered perceptual states interpreted as spirituality in The End of Faith. He argues that the human mind can expand into irrational states which could be interpreted as spiritual in the superstitious sense. However as our mind was created by evolution this superstitions spirituality is no more god given than anything else about us.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us.
Dumbstruck by the sheer asinine stupidity of this statement.
At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question.
I'll concede this as technical truth on the basis that we can probably never test every possible question. However I do not agree that reason could not answer every question accurately, because all correct answers have to be, be definition reasonable. That is the definition of a correct answer, that which is reasonable.
Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less.
Does the phrase; superstition "seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less." have any validity? No? I though not. Again the false balance of faith and reason appears.
Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose.
This is another example of attempting to infer some sort of argumentative equality between faith and reason. He appears to be just using his own sound-bite over and over again to make his audience believe there is some justifiable linkage.
More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.
He repeats same false arguments again and again to infer an argumentative equality between faith and reason.
The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.
This is the paragraph that sums up this man's true feelings and why he held his hand up, the rest is just smoke and mirrors intended to hide his real world view.
There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today.
He is attempting to discredit the science behind evolution by exploiting negligible peripheral arguments that are part and parcel of the scientific process. RD answers this one in detail in The Blind Watchmaker.
Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.
Yet again an example of an attempt to create an untouchable "safe haven" for superstition, required because of the irrational claims of faith.
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.
Well that is what we are, the result of aeons of natural selection that spawned and destroyed countless species of which we are but one. If he can't cope with that reality he will squirm and obfuscate all he can to deny that reality which is precisely what he is doing.
Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him.
99% creationist with a 1% concession to evolution forced out him to give him a pitiful place to hide when pinned down by the original question; "were asked to raise their hands if they did not "believe" in evolution."
It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.
Nothing, not one thing, is beyond the remit of scientific study. The methods must be ethical but given that caveat there is no forbidden ground.
Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man's origin, faith can do its part as well.
Biology explains faith not the other way around.
Biologists The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.
Presumably so he can better exploit his audience's gullibility.
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.
This demonstrates his desire for a hierarchy in existence that justifies his desire to rule other people, to have his opinion weigh more in the balance of discussion than that of others.
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.
When all is said and done, however this man tries to hide behind a facade of reasonable argument, he is a superstitious creationist pure and simple.
Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.
This man is a scar on the face of America, a blight that all but the most ignorant will see.
Thanks for reading my rant. It is a bit repetitive but then again his comments are repetitive and there are only so many ways you can say fool!
Well its 11:00 now so I'm off for a bath and spend some quality time soaking up God is not Great.
Other Comments by CJ
45. Comment #46565 by cassdenata on May 31, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Why is life so much more special if a being far superior to us decided to do a science experiment and create a flawed world and human nature to test if we were worthy enough to love him. I mean how pathetic does that sound. It is like we are lab rats trying to complete a maze and if we find the right path, we get cheese and affection from the scientist.Other Comments by cassdenata
46. Comment #46569 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 4:55 pm
darwin2 are you going to tell us why you believe in those things? Other Comments by BaronOchs
47. Comment #46570 by baj on May 31, 2007 at 4:58 pm
The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days.
the question was simply "do you believe in evolution?" end of story.
misstating an issue and then presenting it in the most unreasonably polarized form so that it can be readily dismissed... i couldn't bear to suffer through what followed.
Other Comments by baj
48. Comment #46571 by Tukka on May 31, 2007 at 5:08 pm
What a load of rubbish. The NYTimes should be ashamed to allow this to be published. Would they publish a similar article questioning chemistry versus alchemy, astronomy versus astrology?
They might if a believer in alchemy or astrology were running for President. One could say that the New York Times is doing a public service by allowing this man's clearly irrational, ignorant, anti-scientific point of view to be expressed so that people could see him for the small-minded man that he is, and know to vote accordingly.
It is an unfortunate testament to the scientific illiteracy and irrationality of the general public that we would think that this article could end up having anything but a thoroughly negative impact on his campaign efforts, and that we must worry about people taking this man's words as serious and authoritative.
At every turn in this article, the man betrays an ignorance of what science is about, and what scientific theories of evolution actually say.
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.
Evolutionary theory doesn't SEEK to undermine anyone's religious convictions about the place of human beings in the universe. Theories don't have motives. Theories don't care if what they state confirms or contradicts your belief that humans and other lifeforms are not commonly descended. He continues:
Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Oh, right. So the accumulated body of empirical evidence in support of common descent and any theory of evolution that does not explicitly include provision for the divine, guiding hand of God is "atheist theology posing as science."
Notably, the anthropomorphization of the theory of evolution continues -- it is now trying to convert people the atheism! Of course, what he is really implying here is that scientists researching evolution have an agenda, an ulterior motive that is not merely a good faith pursuit of science -- essentially, what he is saying is that evolution is part of a treacherous plan concocted by atheists to make people stop believing in God.
To me, this provides us with an interesting insight into the mind of the man we're talking about here. He's not only deluded, he's not only irrational, he's not only intolerant of any belief that contradicts his arbitrary world-view, it seems he's also a paranoid conspiracy theorist!
Other Comments by Tukka
49. Comment #46573 by savroD on May 31, 2007 at 5:09 pm
This guy is a certified moron. The only people as stupid are the other two morons who raised their hands when asked the question. You might ask why did I watch the debate? To see the libertarian of course!mihi libertas necessest!
Other Comments by savroD
50. Comment #46574 by Bremas on May 31, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Bookman (24)"Sen. Brownback has (sadly) proved himself to be perfectly qualified for the job of President of the United States. How is he any different from Reagan or George W. Bush?"
as opposed to the three living ex presidents.
From an article today about the dedication of the new Billy Graham library:
"President George H.W. Bush sobbed as he spoke of how much the minister meant to him"
"When he prays with you in the Oval Office or upstairs in the White House, you feel he's praying for you, not the president," Clinton said.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070531-1425-billygrahamlibrary.html
Ugh, I need a beer.
Someone tell me it's after noon where they are and I'll get a beer.
Other Comments by Bremas
Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive...but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."
Mark Twain
Other Recommended Reading
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
Breaking the Spell
Daniel C. Dennett
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #46506 by nrvous on May 31, 2007 at 2:08 pm
(Oh, wait...)
Other Comments by nrvous