Some Pro-Creation Wisdom from Sam Brownback

What I Think About Evolution - New York Times editorial

While the whole thing boils down to “I believe in my faith,” a few bits were noteworthy:

Early on, he lays down his maker, … his marker:

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.

He predicates his whole piece on his assumption of creation. Not very persuasive. As long as the reader accepts that assumption, which also happens to be the conclusion, then it all makes sense.

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today.

This bit is annoying, and dare I use the word?, “disingenuous.” If he’s trying to claim that the scientific consensus on the facts evolution (common descent, natural selection, genetic mutation, great periods of time, etc.) are somehow in dispute, or still being hashed out, he’s wrong.

[I]s [man] merely the chance product of random mutations[?]

Another canard. Evolution is not random. Natural selection operates very powerfully, and most definitely ‘non-randomly,’ on organisms that have experienced small “random” changes. Like all creationist arguments, this is a gross misrepresentation of what evolution is.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident.

He repeats the “accident” idea. Sorry, still wrong.

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.

This is the sneakiest, most annoying sentence in the whole editorial. “Empirical science” is all about observations, evidence, reproducible experiments. If those who propose “design or purpose,” want to invoke empirical science, then they must produce some observations and evidence. This intellectual sleight-of-hand underlies the whole Intelligent Design/Creationist movement. It is all a puffed-up version of “You can’t prove it’s wrong, can you?” No. No. No. If I want to claim that God or Allah or Jehovah or the Chthulu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life on Earth, then I have to cough some “empirical” evidence that supports that.

Comments

  1. Dreggas wrote:

    And somewhere a weird looking kid strummed the first few bars of “Dueling banjos”.

    Posted 31 May 2007 at 3:41 pm

  2. Alon Levy wrote:

    proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today.

    ****. First, classical Darwinism is 70 years dead; the current mainstream theory of evolution is neo-Darwinism. And second, the proponents of punctuated equilibrium had their chance and lost.

    Posted 31 May 2007 at 4:32 pm

  3. DavidC wrote:

    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.

    Hmm. So apparently he has faith that when faith and reason come into conflict, that there really isn’t any contradition. Sure, that makes perfect sense.

    Posted 31 May 2007 at 4:55 pm

  4. Dreggas wrote:

    DavidC wrote:

    Hmm. So apparently he has faith that when faith and reason come into conflict, that there really isn’t any contradition. Sure, that makes perfect sense.

    I can see the bumper stickers now:

    “Brownback: Pro-Torture, Pro-Tortured Thinking”.

    Or something along those lines.

    Posted 31 May 2007 at 4:58 pm

  5. canuckistani wrote:

    Hmm. So apparently he has faith that when faith and reason come into conflict, that there really isn’t any contradition. Sure, that makes perfect sense.

    And the great thing about faith is that it doesn’t require any evidence to back it up!

    Posted 31 May 2007 at 6:25 pm

  6. John the Marine wrote:

    You know I’m a practicing Christian. I’m still waiting for some one to show me in the Bible (or carved in a stone pillar somewhere, or whatever) where Yahweh (the Father) or Jesus says deny the truth and be an idiot. The Lord works in mysterious ways. Evelution is just part of the mystery. How many fish with feet like fins, (I can’t remember the post that Commie treated us to, but it was a missing link kind of revelation) and other numerous examples to many to count, does one have to see? How extensive does the fossil record have to be? For God’s sake what does it take? I’m sure that I have enough of a command of the English Language to make an articulate argument for the World being flat, but that doesn’t make it so. It just makes me an articulate moron.

    I sometimes joke about shooting reasonable Liberals that make good/sane points (Don’t worry Canuck). However, if I really was to visit violence on some one for an opinion this type of fool would be at the top of the list. Please, for the Love of Pete, stop giving the Good Lord a bad name.

    Nice job Commie. These stories always make me laugh

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 12:27 pm

  7. Dreggas wrote:

    John,

    I kid you not, I was at a local amusement park here in California with my wife’s cousin, her boyfriend and his evangelical friends. We were riding a ride called land of the dinosaurs or something and two of the guys friends were in front of me. One turns to the other and says in complete seriousness “Do you think dinosaurs really exist? They aren’t in the bible.”

    I didn’t know whether to laugh or puke. The person was schooled in some church school so I guess I shouldn’t be suprised but sadly the order of the day is to throw reason and evidence right out the window and ignore any empirical evidence not written in the book of genesis.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 1:12 pm

  8. commissar wrote:

    JtM,

    There’s another aspect to Brownback’s editorial that I didn’t need to get into in my post. But 2 or 3 times, he says, “but of course, maybe evolution has something to offer about trivial, minor changes WITHIN FIXED AND CREATED species.”

    Like Lewis Black quipped, “I want to say one thing to him: ‘FOSSILS!’ … and then throw one just over his head.”

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 1:16 pm

  9. John the Marine wrote:

    Dreggas,
    Your above story is indeed amazing. Like you, I don’t know whether to mock or be sickened by such gross displays of ignorance and stupidity.

    Commie,
    Being a little more hot blooded than you I would like to get a nice big Brontosaurus Bone and beat them with it.

    Now, I have theory about Fundies. Whether they be Creationist, Political Extremist or Flat Worlders. They know deep down that they are endorsing a fairy tale(s). However, the think that they are cool because of their intelectual rebelion against reason. Sort of like the teenager who goes Goth. Even though they are behaving like, and making themselves look like an “A” hole they think they are cutting edge.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 1:50 pm

  10. Dreggas wrote:

    Now, I have theory about Fundies. Whether they be Creationist, Political Extremist or Flat Worlders. They know deep down that they are endorsing a fairy tale(s). However, the think that they are cool because of their intelectual rebelion against reason. Sort of like the teenager who goes Goth. Even though they are behaving like, and making themselves look like an “A” hole they think they are cutting edge.

    Eh the goth comparisson is not really apt, after all it’s us goth’s who tend to find reason and logic much more enlightening. Then again I am just the history and science buff type.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 2:19 pm

  11. Dreggas wrote:

    Oh and John, pass me one of those bones, I’d like to go club a few just like my ancestors did.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 2:20 pm

  12. John the Marine wrote:

    I chose Goths because pretending to be a vampire or walking dead is about as far from reality as one can get. I mean really, the black clothes and make up is just too much for me not to make fun of. From reading your posts I’ve developed a respect for your intelligence. I find it hard to beleive you would practice such a silly fad. But hey, to each his own.

    I am just the history and science buff type.

    I suffer from the same disease. I think your addiction has served you well.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 2:32 pm

  13. Dreggas wrote:

    John the Marine wrote:

    I chose Goths because pretending to be a vampire or walking dead is about as far from reality as one can get. I mean really, the black clothes and make up is just too much for me not to make fun of. From reading your posts I’ve developed a respect for your intelligence. I find it hard to beleive you would practice such a silly fad. But hey, to each his own.

    Actually I don’t do the vampire or makeup part, the black clothing is another story. Not that I have an issue with either, when I was younger I did, however the overall goth movement isn’t what you see the teens doing and really I don’t see that many even doing white face at the clubs or parties (I DJ goth/industrial events). The clothes are another story and I like the fashion to some extent.

    I suffer from the same disease. I think your addiction has served you well.

    If we don’t learn from it we are doomed to repeat it. Further it’s good to know where you come from, not just where you were born.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 2:42 pm

  14. canuckistani wrote:

    There’s a bumper sticker up on Balloon Juice which says “I visited the Creation Museum and all I got was stupider”
    Does it bother these people that everyone else looks at them like they’re inbred gomers who didn’t manage to pass grade 2 science? Does shame make them defiant, or have they been taught to be proud of being simple? It’s a mindset that absolutely baffles me.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 3:17 pm

  15. DavidC wrote:

    I’d have a lot more respect for people like Brownback if they just said something like: “I don’t believe in evolution because it conflicts with my religious beliefs.” But no, they have to pretend that they really have a good rational basis on which to reject established science. And in most cases they have very little understanding of the Theory of Evolution anyway — certainly not enough to make an informed decision about whether or not to accept it.

    One turns to the other and says in complete seriousness “Do you think dinosaurs really exist? They aren’t in the bible.”

    Unfortunately I know people like that. They’ll go on about how the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago is silly, since of course the world is only several thousand years old. And they say such things with total confidence, and not the slightest fear that you might think they are insane.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 4:30 pm

  16. Dreggas wrote:

    canuckistani wrote:

    There’s a bumper sticker up on Balloon Juice which says “I visited the Creation Museum and all I got was stupider”
    Does it bother these people that everyone else looks at them like they’re inbred gomers who didn’t manage to pass grade 2 science? Does shame make them defiant, or have they been taught to be proud of being simple? It’s a mindset that absolutely baffles me.

    Nope it doesn’t they like feeling persecuted and having a martyr complex.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 4:32 pm

  17. DavidC wrote:

    Does shame make them defiant, or have they been taught to be proud of being simple? It’s a mindset that absolutely baffles me.

    It’s a religious mindset or a mindset typical of any fanatic. They know the TRUTH. Contrary facts can be easily dismissed, because they conflict with the TRUTH.

    Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 4:34 pm

  18. CaseyL wrote:

    People like to think they’re insiders. They like to think they know stuff nobody else does, that they’re privy to truths denied others.

    That’s a normal human trait. It causes trouble when it’s joined with a superficial mentality and an inflated sense of self-importance.

    Religion, unfortunately, is a prime habitat for that sort of personality, precisely because religion is by its very nature immune to critical analysis. “All you need is faith” - and the very fact that critical thinking would undermine that faith is part of its allure (and trap).

    Posted 02 Jun 2007 at 1:03 pm

  19. commissar wrote:

    I presume you are not Casey Luskin.

    Posted 02 Jun 2007 at 5:08 pm

« Fort Xanadu
On a Google-Street where you live »