Re: Sam Brownback on evolution
- --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, John Hopkins
>question his grasp of other issues present and on the horizon. In the
> Sam's letter shows a poor grasp of the issue at hand and calls into
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.
- --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, Carol Smith <humanist@...> wrote:
> By SAM BROWNBACK
> Published: May 31, 2007
> IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect
This obviously ghost-written spiel reminds me of a line from "My
"Did you say that, Karl? I'm impressed!"
- Remember the book and movie "1984" keep telling a lie enough times
and people will believe.
>----- End message from lflank@... -----
> --- 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
> 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
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
> "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
> Creation "Science" Debunked:
- 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
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
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
Biologists will have their debates about mans 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 mans
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 mans 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 mans 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.