For example, he reasonably says that Faith and scientific reasoning can't be contradictory:
"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."
And he is absolutely correct when he asserts that how "these theories"-presumably evolutionary theories- affect our understanding of the "human person" is a fundamental question.
But read more closely and Brownback is unmasked as a creationist-not even a theistic evolutionist. First, he repeats the creationist line about the distinction believing in microevolution (evolution with in a species). For example he says:
"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. "
Notice how he not only rejects the concept of evolution of new species but also conflates any belief in evolution of new species from preexisting species with materialism.
So rather than striking a reasonable accommodation between faith and science, Brownback reveals himself to be an extremist wedded to the same sorts of fundamentalist rhetoric, that rejects the power of science to help us understand our humble place in the universe.
Update! Pat Hayes over at Red State Rabble has also posted about Brownback here.
Technorati Tags:
Science
Brownback
Creationism
Evolution
2 comments:
The great irony is that Brownback begins the article by saying this is a "complicated issue" and that a sound bite cannot do justice to "the nuance or subtlety it deserves."
Then he proceeds to present a false dichotomy, as you point out, between microevolution and materialism. But if he really wants to treat the issue with seriousness, to find a subtle or nuanced position, he would look somewhere between the two extremes.
"[Brownback] asserts that how "these theories"-presumably evolutionary theories- affect our understanding of the "human person" is a fundamental question." But, of course, they do.
If Darwin is right (and he is), then the "need for a deity" is obviated (in Charles polite and nuanced manner of speaking), or logically impossible (in Dawkins' typically polemical way), but so are all "essentialist" claims (e.g., "man is a rational animal" -- Boethius). Perhaps (Boethius has not met the Evangelical Set), but humans, by their nature, are immensely diverse in their characteristics, and thus are sexual, linguistic, social, altruistic (sometimes), other-regarding, bonding, self-regarding, emotional, political, ethical, moral, mortal, etc. animals too. So much for transcendent essences and the divinities that "create" them.
Darwin shifts our entire ontology with his five simple, empirical, and verified "theories." "Populations" replaces "essences," "natural selection" replaces "intelligent design," "sexual selection" replaces "procreative teleology," "kin selection" replaces "universal brotherhood of mankind," etc. No wonder Creationists are so hostile to all of Darwin's theories, which repudiate empirically what the diviners posit from the metaphysics of revelation. Their oracle is out of business. And mega-churching is a huge business with huge profits.
So, in the Struggle to Survive (how Darwinian) the Creationist must kill Darwin, deny all of his empirical theories, or their fraud and profits will wither away. That marketing absurdity of a Creationism Museum at $27 million is not simply to the greater glory of God, it's merchandizing imagery to keep god in the picture that evolution wipes out. How all those paired dinosaurs fit into Noah's Ark, though, begs belief. How damned big was that "ark?" What did these mixed species "do" and "eat" while the flood keeps their boat was suspended on god's floods? Did it have sufficient "toilet" facilities? Talk about a public health and hygiene crisis, from a deity who won't let me eat a medium-rare Filet Mignon with Bernaise Sauce because it still has the "life" in it and combines meat-and-milk? A deity preoccupied by Dietary Laws, women on their menses (and blood pollution), but not a wit about public sanitation -- esp. on that "ark?" These "facts" just do not add up, whereas Darwin's do. And that is the problem. The Will to Believe is so credulous it ignores the obvious.
P.S. Thanks for your kind comments.
Post a Comment