Brownback on Faith and Reason
In a recent Republican Presidential debate, three candidates raised their hands when asked if they did NOT believe in evolution. I initially shook my head at the response of these three candidates, one of which is a former governor of my home state.
But after a little more thought, it occurred to me that this issue, like many others, really should not be forced by the media or a debate moderator into a nice neat yes/no box. (A more fair and meaningful yes or no question would be if the candidate supports the teaching of creationism in schools).
If forced to pick one side in the oversimplified debate, I would side with belief in the theory of evolution without hesitation. But, in my mind, the word "evolution" simply acknowledges that species have undergone gradual changes over time due to natural selection.
The word "evolution", to me, does not suggest the absence or non-involvement of a Creator or divine force in the design of nature or humanity. Yet to many people, particularly when asked in a manner that does not give or allow clarification, I think a belief in "evolution" does imply that absence.
Senator Sam Brownback wrote a strong defense of this line of thought in the New York Times today.
I am recommending it as an example of elevated debate and reasoning in this campaign. I found it refreshing, even when I disagreed with certain points.
I think it is an important read for people sitting farther on the left of the political spectrum.
Deeply conservative people like Senator Brownback are often written off as unreasonable or even unintelligent when known only through minimal media coverage such as this "vote" on evolution. They are perceived to have low intelligence and/or a decision making process that relies more on blind faith than reason, logic and/or observable facts.
Yet often, if not most of the time, this is simply not the case.
Recognizing this misperception is essential if the country is ever going to remember the substantial amount of common ground that still exists among all Americans (and build on it to make the overdue progress we need on a range of social issues).
11 comments:
I read Brownback's "defense" of his position, and I find it rather unnerving. He seems to say, "Well, if by 'evolution' you mean 'evolution,' then yes, I believe in it. But if by 'evolution' you mean 'materialistic atheistic nihilism,' then no, I don't believe in it." He tries to have it both ways; hey, you scientifically-minded folks, don't worry, I believe in evolution, so you can vote for me, but on the other hand, if you irrationally shun evolution, you can still vote for me because I hate godless liberals, too!
I agree that a belief in evolution implies, to many people, the absence of a creative God. But in reality, evolution has nothing to say about God, and the idea that it does is entirely the work of ultra-right-wing loonies who have convinced people that evolutionary biologists are actually missionaries for atheism. Either Brownback has eaten this lie right up, in which case I'm not too impressed with his intelligence, or he's pandering to the religious right, in which case I'm not too impressed with his integrity.
Besides, Brownback has already come out in favor of the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, so that should cover your more fair and meaningful question and tell you where he's really coming from.
Hey Steve & Jared. Great hearing from you guys again! I think Sen. Brownback did a good job defending his position on evolution. I applaud his honest answer in the debate and his further explanation in his article. I think it is reasonable for someone to reject the unproven aspects of evolutionary theory. While many affirm micro-evolution there are many who reject macro-evolution. They reject macro evolution on the basis of rational thinking and scientific observation. I happen to agree with those who believe there is inadequate evidence to support the evolutionary claim that one species can evolve into an entirely different species. There are also assumptions and untestable assertions scattered throughout the theory of evolution that cause me to question its integrity. Therefore, I can understand why some would question or even reject its truth.
Steve is correct that evolution has nothing to say about God, however, many evolutionists have plenty to say about God. Evolution is a mindless, purposeless, unintelligent process that has supposedly organized elementary particles, molecules and compounds into living organisms. Some of these organisms are intelligent beings that seek purpose in their lives. This purposeless process has created purposful beings who essentially have two explanations for why they exist: God or Evolution. While evolution doesn't speak of God, it is the only explanation that atheists offer to explain our origins (unless you consider aliens a viable option...at which point I wonder if the aliens were created or evolved from martian soil? ;)) The question behind the question posed to Senator Brownback is essentially this, "Are you an unreasonable religious fanatic who embraces fundamentalist Christian teachings at the expense of secular knowledge and wisdom?" I think he understood the heart of the question and responded appropriately.
I really don't know much about Sen. Brownback. He may have been pandering, however, I think he was be trying to give an honest answer based on his beliefs. I'm sure he did this realizing he would be ridiculed for his comments. If this was the case then I applaud him for his honesty and courage.
I think it is reasonable for someone to reject the unproven aspects of evolutionary theory.
This point is frequently raised, but it is always misguided. No scientific theory is ever considered "proven." The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of electromagnetism has not been proven. The germ theory of disease has not been proven. All that we ever do is gather evidence. The great preponderance of the evidence shows us that our ideas about gravity and electromagnetism and disease are very likely to be correct, and thus, we believe in them. If, tomorrow, we all wake up and begin levitating from our beds, then we will need a new theory of gravity. No one can prove that we won't begin levitating tomorrow.
Similarly, the evidence in favor of macroevolution is solid. Mainstream science accepts macroevolution fully, and it has done so in accord with rational thinking and scientific observation. So I have to disagree with your statement that rational thinking and scientific observation can lead one to a rejection of macroevolution.
There are also assumptions and untestable assertions scattered throughout the theory of evolution that cause me to question its integrity.
Like?
Steve is correct that evolution has nothing to say about God, however, many evolutionists have plenty to say about God.
So what? Do you evaluate a scientific theory based on its merits, or based on the religious inclinations of its proponents?
Evolution is a mindless, purposeless, unintelligent process that has supposedly organized elementary particles, molecules and compounds into living organisms.
This is incorrect. Evolution does not discuss the origin of life from nonliving matter. It only discusses the process by which already-existing organisms change with time. Plenty of room for God to work his magic, if that's your cup of tea.
While evolution doesn't speak of God, it is the only explanation that atheists offer to explain our origins
Well, it's the only explanation that has its basis in science.
I'm sure he did this realizing he would be ridiculed for his comments. If this was the case then I applaud him for his honesty and courage.
I suppose it is a form of courage to air one's beliefs boldly when expecting ridicule, but it doesn't mean that the ridicule isn't merited.
Bryan, Steve - thanks for the comments. Knowing both of you quite well, I know how differently you view the world (even beyond what your comments reveal), yet you both prove to me that intelligent and respectful debate is still possible in American public policy.
It's great to be able to come here and discuss things with such a group. My saliva has an incurable tinge of vitriol, and it occasionally splashes on Bryan's face, but he is always a good sport and handles it with aplomb. I hope he knows not to take my Yankee arrogance personally.
First of all, I greatly enjoy discussing matters with you guys. I have a lot of respect for both of you and find your ideas and comments stimulating. Steve, you are the kind of guy that I would enjoy hanging out with to talk about science and life. I never take your comments personally. I know you and Jared are both highly educated and have accomplished great things in the areas of science and discovery. I admire your backgrounds and accomplishments immensely. There is a biblical proverb that says, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." I look at our discussions as "sharpening" sessions.
Now, a comment or two about Steve's last post.
I said earlier:
"Evolution is a mindless, purposeless, unintelligent process that has supposedly organized elementary particles, molecules and compounds into living organisms."
Steve replied:
"This is incorrect. Evolution does not discuss the origin of life from nonliving matter. It only discusses the process by which already-existing organisms change with time. Plenty of room for God to work his magic, if that's your cup of tea."
Here Steve states that evolution deals with "already-existing organisms."
I said:
"While evolution doesn't speak of God, it is the only explanation that atheists offer to explain our origins."
Steve replied:
"Well, it's the only explanation that has its basis in science."
Steve, based on your comments above, how can evolution explain our origins if it only applies to the changing of pre-existing organisms? What is the origin of these pre-existing organisms? Your statements mean that scientists who use evolution to explain the origin of life are ignorant of evolution's limitations or they are willingly misusing evolution to eliminate a supernatural explanation for the cause of life.
If evolution is the only scientific explanation for our origins, then it must account for the first cause of living organisms. If it can't offer an explanation on our origins, then honest scientists and others should admit this limitation in evolutionary theory.
My argument isn't against everyone who believes in evolution. I used to believe in evolution in its entirety and still believe in aspects of evolution. My concern is for those who think evolution eliminates the need for a supernatural first cause. Evolution is a product of scientific discovery - scientific discovery that breaks down at the edges of our universe.
Steve, if you are really interested in discussing this matter further then I will be happy to email you. I will be also happy to share with you the assertions and assumptions of evolution that I think are questionable. I don't want to tie up Jared's blog with a heavy discussion of evolution so I'll wind this comment down. I just want to close by saying I agree with your comments about scientific proof. Our inductive and deductive reasoning abilities allow us to make strong assertions, however, many of our "truths" we live by may very well be unprovable. Descartes and Locke wrestled with this reality through their philosophical attempts to define logical truths that could perform as well as the formal truths of mathematics. I think we also must admit that some truths are best discovered through forensic science when we are dealing with events that can't be repeated or replicated in a laboratory.
Take care guys!!
Steve, based on your comments above, how can evolution explain our origins if it only applies to the changing of pre-existing organisms?
Ah, I took your "we" to mean "human beings," in which case evolution explains our origins in terms of our development from earlier primates. If by "we" you mean "life on Earth," then evolution can not explain the origin of that.
What is the origin of these pre-existing organisms?
The origin of the first organisms on Earth is not nearly as well understood as the process of evolution. We have some ideas as to how self-replicating amino acids can arise from organic matter in conditions similar to those present on the young Earth, but no one will tell you that we really know what happened.
Your statements mean that scientists who use evolution to explain the origin of life are ignorant of evolution's limitations or they are willingly misusing evolution to eliminate a supernatural explanation for the cause of life.
Well, no scientists are actually doing this. People in the public/political sphere may mistake evolution for a theory of the origin of life, but actual biologists never use it as such. They know that it isn't one.
If evolution is the only scientific explanation for our origins, then it must account for the first cause of living organisms.
Why must it? There is a difference between the origin of life from nonliving matter and the changes in existing lifeforms with time. They are different processes, and different theories govern them.
If it can't offer an explanation on our origins, then honest scientists and others should admit this limitation in evolutionary theory.
Again, if by "our origins" you mean "the origins of the human species," then evolution explains that pretty darn well. Scientists do admit that evolution does not speak to the origin of life itself from inanimate matter.
My concern is for those who think evolution eliminates the need for a supernatural first cause.
Ah! This is a different issue, one on which we are certain to have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that there is a "need" for any such thing in the first place, so evolution isn't eliminating anything.
Our inductive and deductive reasoning abilities allow us to make strong assertions, however, many of our "truths" we live by may very well be unprovable.
When it comes to philosophical, moral, and spiritual truths, I agree. But when it comes to physical phenomena in our observable universe, I don't think there is anything that is inherently "unknowable." We may never know why we are here, but I am confident that we'll soon understand fully how we got here.
Steve, if you are really interested in discussing this matter further then I will be happy to email you.
That's entirely up to you; I'm always happy to discuss/debate/argue (in a friendly way, of course [usually]!). Ask Jared for my email if you're interested.
"But when it comes to physical phenomena in our observable universe, I don't think there is anything that is inherently "unknowable." We may never know why we are here, but I am confident that we'll soon understand fully how we got here."
I'll have to ponder this Steve. I share your optimism that mankind is capable of much discovery. I'll get your email from Jared and we can continue our conversation.
Thanks Steve.
Caltech physicist Sean Carroll discusses Brownback and evolution.
Thanks Steve for the article by Sean Carroll. I enjoyed reading his perspective on the whole Sen. Brownback matter. I owe you and email my friend.
Take care,
Bryan
Dr. Carroll has a pretty decent blog in general. He overdoes it a bit when it comes to politics and to religion--I think that he can be a bit much, and I even agree with him most of the time!--but he is a pretty clear thinker and a relatively engaging writer. He's especially good when he talks about physics.
Post a Comment