Sam Brownback Is Muddled

Update 5pm: I wrote PZ Meyers about this op-ed this morning, telling him I was looking forward to hearing his comments. Witness the master.



Sam Brownback, GOP candidate for president, writes an excruciatingly irritating op-ed in today's Times, trying to explain why he raised his hand at the first debate when the candidates were asked if they "believe in evolution." It's a textbook example of watery evolution/faith muddiness, of political doublespeak.

Saying it to make it true? Check.

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.

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.

Use of the nonsense term "microevolution" and strawmanning evolution? Check.

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.

Misunderstanding evolution as producing things by "chance?" Check.

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.

"Small changes that take place within a species?" How can you POSSIBLY sensibly draw that line. That's pathetic.

I'm continuing to understand better why Sam Harris has such anger for the religious moderate position, as it seems to much more intellectually dishonest. Just saying you don't want there to be a contradiction between things doesn't make that contradiction go away. Science class is where we say we only believe things that we can prove. We don't decided what we believe and then pick and choose facts to support that prior decision. We go where observations lead.

Sure, that's not all there is to the world. We don't do this in English class. We don't do this in music. You don't have to do it in Sunday School.

Continuing on...

False dichotomy? Check.

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.

But always hidden under all this talk about "Some of my best friends are reason" is the fact that he fundamentally rejects the most basic guideline of science - that there are no a priori truths. Brownback reveals that for him, science is a tool to prove the conclusions he has already reached: man's "unique and intended place in the cosmos." That is not science, that is not reason, and that means he does not understand the significance of evolutionary theory.

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.

And then Brownback just lets loose with it. He says it outright. If science confirms what he already believes, he's cool with it. Otherwise, it's false - it's "atheist theology posing as science." My dear, what the fuck do you think science is?

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.

A stunningly revealing post about the mind of Sam Brownback.