What Sam Brownback Thinks of Evolution
I just had to comment about an Op-Ed piece Sam Brownback wrote in today's New York Times, called "What I Think About Evolution"
Brownback starts out by referencing the debate in which the Republican presidential candidates were asked who among them did not believe in evolution. He writes that "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."
He talks about how science and faith shouldn't be used to drive a wedge between people, and how they don't answer the same questions. He says "people of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us." He also makes like he's open to the idea of evolution, and gives an example of the definition of evolution that he's comfortable with. If you read it too quickly, it almost sounds like open mindedness. It could be accepted by some as a willingness to accept science, so long as it doesn't go to extremes to fight off faith. Well, Mr. Brownback's version of evolution is this: "Small changes over time within a species." Last time I checked, that's NOT what people talk about when they use the term evolution in this context.
By the end of his essay, Brownback is still trying to give the illusion of open mindedness. He starts his concluding paragraph with the advice that "no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins."
Of course, he then goes on to list exactly which stones are off limits:
How do you like that? It's only science if it confirms his faith. Otherwise, it's theology posing as science.
Dizzying, huh?
Brownback starts out by referencing the debate in which the Republican presidential candidates were asked who among them did not believe in evolution. He writes that "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."
He talks about how science and faith shouldn't be used to drive a wedge between people, and how they don't answer the same questions. He says "people of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us." He also makes like he's open to the idea of evolution, and gives an example of the definition of evolution that he's comfortable with. If you read it too quickly, it almost sounds like open mindedness. It could be accepted by some as a willingness to accept science, so long as it doesn't go to extremes to fight off faith. Well, Mr. Brownback's version of evolution is this: "Small changes over time within a species." Last time I checked, that's NOT what people talk about when they use the term evolution in this context.
By the end of his essay, Brownback is still trying to give the illusion of open mindedness. He starts his concluding paragraph with the advice that "no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins."
Of course, he then goes on to list exactly which stones are off limits:
"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."Did everyone catch that? He basically says that he'll start with creation, and accept any scientific theories compatible with it. On the other hand, any theories that don't agree with it are to be rejected as athiestic theology posing as science.
How do you like that? It's only science if it confirms his faith. Otherwise, it's theology posing as science.
Dizzying, huh?
posted by Eric Jay | 6/01/2007 02:32:00 AM
1 Comments:
So, I'm a liberal Jew and all, but creation and evolution aren't at all incompatible. We just believe that the bible was written over thousands of years with multiple translations and lots of oral transmission. Also, it's highly poetic. Oh, not to mention how it was written by humans, and we didn't know as much about science back then, so some details were fuzzy. If you keep all that in mind, it makes perfect sense. The days in which the universe was created weren't 24-hour days, because it's poetic. Besides, why would G-d have lameoid 24-hour days like the rest of us? This is G-d we're talking about; G-d goes all out and has 10,000-year days when it seems fitting.
There's really nothing in there that isn't compatible with what we now know about geology etc., unless you're taking the bible completely literally!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home