Kansas Republican Senator and Presidential candidate Sam Brownback was one of the three candidates at the first republican debate to raise his hand saying that he did not believe in evolution... Today he wrote an op-ed that was published in the New York Times trying to clarify has position. I've not seen any other diaries focusing on this op-ed, so I figured it would be worthwhile to go through and anylize what he said
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.
This is an absolutely silly way to view the question. Furthermore, everything Sen. Brownback tries to assert later contradicts this point. One can claim, as he does later that god and evolution are not exclusionary, but asking someone if they believe in evolution has no bearing on this question.
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.
Again, this question was frammed only as simple "do you believe in X" construct...Answering affirmatively should not have any bearing on any other aspect of your belief... The question was not phrased " Do you believe in God or Evolution"?
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.
Clearly this is factually innacurate...Faith is often later contradicted by new found reason and scientific evidence. Over the ages science has unquestionably dispelled many myths once fervantly held because of biblical faith. Is he trying to say that faith in earth's centrality in the universe was not contradicted by evidence of the planet's revolution around the sun, or the existance of other galaxies...?
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.
If the spiritual world and spiritual truths exist shoulden't they be understandable and discoverable by the same scientific method we use to look at the rest of the physical universe? No attempts to discuss this contradiction.
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.
Of course, Sen. Brownback is clearly talking about faith in the judeo-christian god...If I have faith in and believe in some alternative evil diety or pluralistic pagan gods, then my values, meaning and purpose will clearly be different.
Indeed, I would of course argue that religious faith is not needed to give meaning and purpose in the world. By blindly assuming that religious faith is the only sort of faith, however, Brownback robs the word of much of its meaning. Indeed, I have faith in the reasoning capacity and ability of mankind to establish a better world precisely because the resonable facts of the success of mankind up to this point in history...
Faith without any semblance of reason however can not truly provide a meaning because it lacks any connection to the real world and real facts around us. At most, it can provide a dellusion or a fantasy world.
More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love.
At this point, Brownback is using reason and science as synonymous... Science can perhaps not alone provide full understanding of human capacity for love (though evolutionary psychology and neurology do a pretty compelling job of establishing the biological and historical basis for these emotions), but reason certanily can. Reason can be based on our empirical experiences in the world and using evidence derived from our day to day conduct... Simply put, there is no faith involved in believing in the capacity for something that we experience daily...
The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue.
I agree
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 a huge misperception about evolution. First of all, if you believe in microevolution, then it is silly to limit that to change within a species alone....It is clearly possible for macroevolutionary changes to become so pronounced that what is changed no longer resembles and is sexually incompatable with what came before it...Leading to a new species. There is nothing throughly shocking about this formulation...Indeed, we clearly see if happening reguarly with viruses, bacteria and other organelle that rapidly reproduce..
There is also nothing deterministic about evolution especially when one comes to humans. Indeed, there is as much room for individual animals to act to achieve their own reproductive success and survival. On the level of the individual organism, each is a unique being that is capable of acting in various ways...Some individuals survive due to genetic adaptations, but in humans we are also capable of adopting novel responses to any situation. Indeed, the development of a concience and the ability to think and reason clearly demolishes any determinism in human conduct
There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today.
Infighting over the way particular way that changes most readily occur in natures does not at all discredit the basic theory of evolution that is upheld by almost all biological scientists in the world today.
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident.
The term historical accident is weighted with misconception and falsehood. Human beings did not have to invariably end up the way we did, there is nothing determinstic in evolution as stated earlier. However, the development of a concious, rational being is not illogical. Indeed, when enough species exist that finding a unique niche is difficult, evolution will push for new innovative species. This innovation can come in as simple a form as a new type of camaflouge, or in as complex as fashion as the human ability to reason....
Once evolution as a process became established on earth, the development of rational beings is not surprising in the least.
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.
So...now scientists who try to look for non theological roots for existance are beyond the realm of empirical science? This seems rather fascicious... criticizing them for being beyond the realm of something that you yourself describe as limited...
Of course, in reality physicists who try to understand the origin of the universe are operating on the same level of empirical and theoretical science as the rest of the rational world.
Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table.
I don't see how faith not rooted in our empirical experience on earth (therefore grounded in reason) can bring much to the table here... Again...Faith does not have to be inherantly devoid of reason or evidence, but the type of religious faith Brownback refferences usually attempts to reject the power of reason on face.
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.
I'd love for Sen. Brownback to try to explain why people are willed into being in improvished conditions in sub-Saharan Africa where they die after a few days from malnutrition. There is no essential dignity in the life of man, only that dignity which we construct through our reasoning.
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.
This conclusion is particularly noxious. All of these assertions are made without a shred of evidence....Not being an accident and having some higher and divine purpose are not one in the same.
Calling atheism a theology is also quite base...Theology is the realm of faith without reason and an attempt to gather evidence. Atheism is a belief structure about the world order that gathers and is based on evidence and empiricism...The label is utterly misguided.
In the end, Brownbacks comments are utterly inspid though that was easily predictable... Indeed, the problem with his logic is that he conflates many terms and uses them as synonymous... Religious faith is not the exclusive faith domain, and indeed is the only one that is completely based not on empirical existance but on blind readings of a religious text.
Faith in the potential goodness, purity, morality or love of mankind is not groundless. Indeed, it is an absolutely resonable construct based on our human experiences and commonality.
Evolution at its basis provides a way to understand how human resoning and thought has developed, and the world order around it. However, science in general requires the rejection of blind faith. Indeed, it relegates blind faith a place in the gaps of research and experimentation. It based on the idea that any hypothesis must be concieveably disprovable or should throughly be rejected.