About a month ago, in what turned out to be one of the more memorable moments of the Republican presidential debate, the candidates were asked a straightforward question: “Is there anybody on the stage that does not believe in evolution?”
Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback raised their hands to express their disagreement with modern biology. Today, Brownback has an op-ed in the NYT explaining why.
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.
Brownback is playing a little game here, but he’s not playing it well. He’s applying his own underlying premise to a basic question that included no nuance — either someone accepts evolutionary biology or they don’t. Either they embrace descent with modification (bolstered by all of modern science) or they embrace something else (bolstered by no evidence at all). Brownback answered the question by raising his hand against biology. It’s too late to add distinctions that don’t exist.
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 classic creationist doublespeak. Every fundamentalist who hesitates to embrace a 6,000-year-old earth says he or she is willing to accept “microevolution” (changes within a species), but not “macroevolution” (evolution that leads to new species). Why is Brownback willing to believe in one and not the other? He doesn’t really say; he’s just woried about a science that might upset his religious beliefs.
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.
This is more a political argument than a scientific one. Brownback doesn’t like evolution because some biologists aren’t theists? Please.
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.
How odd. We must consider all of the evidence with an open mind, Brownback says, just so long as the evidence doesn’t conflict with any of his religious beliefs.
The entire column is surprisingly incoherent — not just because Brownback accepts some form of creationism, but also because Brownback can’t explain what he actually believes. No one can read his piece and come away with any real understanding of exactly what the senator thinks about modern biology, other than his desire to see his theological beliefs “complement” science.
I read the piece several times and have no idea what Brownback is even trying to say. Evolution is fine, accept when it’s not. Science and religion can supplement one another, except when they can’t. Species can evolve, except when they don’t. Evidence is key, except when it’s not. Facts should speak for themselves, except when when we don’t like what they’re saying.
What’s the point of even writing a column like this? One suspects Brownback knows he looked foolish for raising his hand at the debate, so he’s trying to bolster his intellectual street cred by appearing in the New York Times writing about “microevolution.” At the same time, Brownback can’t reverse course completely and endorse biology, because the Dobson crowd will have a fit.
So, we’re left with a garbled mess. Senator, if you’re reading, ’tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, then speak and remove all doubt.
For more, Pharyngula rips Brownback’s piece to shreds from a more scientific perspective. Take a look.