Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Sam Brownback on evolution

Expand Messages
  • Roger Stanyard
    ... question his grasp of other issues present and on the horizon. In the words of a sage tomb of ancient wisdom, Yee shall know a tree by it s fruit. And
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
      --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, John Hopkins
      <mindoversplatter2006@...> wrote:
      >
      > Sam's letter shows a poor grasp of the issue at hand and calls into
      question his grasp of other issues present and on the horizon. In the
      words of a sage tomb of ancient wisdom, "Yee shall know a tree by it's
      fruit." And this plum smells kinda' fishy !
      >

      Brownback's position is astonishing. He is a lawyer that doesn't appear
      to know why the IDers lost Dover spectacularly.
    • David Windhorst
      ... snip This obviously ghost-written spiel reminds me of a line from My Favorite Year : Did you say that, Karl? I m impressed! David
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
        --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, Carol Smith <humanist@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > By SAM BROWNBACK
        > Published: May 31, 2007
        > Washington
        >
        > IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect

        snip



        This obviously ghost-written spiel reminds me of a line from "My
        Favorite Year":

        "Did you say that, Karl? I'm impressed!"

        David
      • Secretary@Afterlife2.org
        Remember the book and movie 1984 keep telling a lie enough times and people will believe. Secretary
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
          Remember the book and movie "1984" keep telling a lie enough times
          and people will believe.

          Secretary



          >
          > --- Carol Smith <humanist@...> wrote:
          >
          >>
          >>
          >> By SAM BROWNBACK
          >
          >> 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.
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > Gee, and I thought ID was science, science and nuttin'
          > but science. So why is all this god-talk appearing
          > here?
          >
          > Or are IDers just, um, lying to us when they claim ID
          > is science, science and nuttin' but science . . . . .
          > ?
          >
          >
          >
          > Thank God the fundies are so utterly and irretrievably
          > stupid. It makes it SOOOOOOOOO much easier to beat
          > their asses in court. Again and again and again and
          > again.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ================================================
          > Lenny Flank
          > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
          >
          >
          > Author:
          > "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
          > http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
          >
          > Creation "Science" Debunked:
          > http://www.geocities.com/lflank
          >


          ----- End message from lflank@... -----
        • Mriana
          Oh brother! This could really screw up science if he were to get his way. *rolling eyes* Mriana Carol Smith wrote: By SAM BROWNBACK
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
            Oh brother!  This could really screw up science if he were to get his way.  *rolling eyes*
             
            Mriana

            Carol Smith <humanist@...> wrote:

            By SAM BROWNBACK
            Published: May 31, 2007
            Washington

            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.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.