Senator Brownback is Confused about Evolution
By Nick Gier, New West Unfiltered 7-04-07
SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK IS CONFUSED ABOUT EVOLUTION
By Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho (ngier@uidaho.edu)
Enlightened reason, taken captive by faith, receives life from faith
. . . [this reason] does not fight against faith but promotes it.
--Martin Luther
Evil things are done with God himself setting them in motion.
--Martin Luther
Conservative GOP Senator and presidential hopeful Sam Brownback says that he believes in evolution. This confession is either intellectually confused or it is a political ploy to gain support with a wider group of voters. I'm assuming that it is the former and not the latter.
In an op-ed in "The New York Times" (5-31-07), Brownback proposes that we should give evolution the "seriousness it demands." He claims that "we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason," and because they are complementary, "there cannot be any contradiction between the two."
As a theistic humanist, I believe that human experience itself will provide "values, meaning, and purpose," but I will respect Brownback's choice to take these on faith alone. But I reject his odd contention that "faith purifies reason so that we might be able to see more clearly." I point out the danger of this below.
Brownback's confusion comes when he says that he only believes in micro- evolution within species, and he rejects the claim that new species come into being by natural selection, the crux of evolutionary theory.
Creationists accept microevolution but condemn the evolution of new species as unbiblical. They are more consistent and intellectually honest than Brownback in affirming their belief that God created all species de novo, a position strongly implied in Brownback's column.
There is overwhelming evidence that human beings descended from a long line of ape ancestors. We share 98 percent of our genetic material with our chimp cousins. Chimps can learn sign language and teach it to their offspring, and we now have evidence that they use medicinal herbs.
As long as Brownback and creationists insist that we are unique divine creations, then their faith and reason will not get along. Brownback repeats the doctrine of special creation so often that it becomes a dogma that will brook no challenge from reason and science.
If faith purifies reason so that it sees only religious doctrine clearly, then we have Martin Luther's "enlightened reason, taken captive by faith," one that "does not fight against faith but promotes it." Luther once called reason a whore, but here it is a slave to faith.
Like many critics of evolution, Brownback assumes that belief in evolution forces one to embrace "an exclusively material- istic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence." To interpret science as metaphysics rather than simply a time-honored method to interpret empirical data is "scientism" not true science.
If Brownback's "guiding intelligence" is a deity that knows all of the future and causes everything to happen, then human beings have no free will, and they have just as little value as in the materialistic worldview that both he and I reject. Bringing in a traditional God causes more problems than it allegedly solves.
If God causes everything, then he produces evil as well as good. We know that sickle cell anemia evolved for a specific reason in Africa, where it protected the natives from malaria, but it became a debilitating defect for those unfortunate enough to be brought to America in chains.
Creationists, however, are left with a profound moral dilemma with this and many other similar examples. Natural selection has no moral scruples, but creationists must defend a deity who creates a myriad of things that can have both good and evil effects.
Senator Brownback is a Roman Catholic and in a recent response to his column, Robert T. Miller, assistant professor at Villanova's Law School, finds Brown- back's position confusing. Miller also demonstrates that his views of the relation of faith and reason do not conform to Catholic tradition, established by St. Thomas Aquinas 700 years ago.
If good saint were alive today, he would protect reason from slavery and not allow it to be taken captive by faith. I'm also sure that he would embrace all of evolutionary theory, not just a minor portion of it.
Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31years. Read his essay "God is not a Scientific Hypothesis" at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/design.htm, and his chapter "Creationism: Bad Science; Wrong Religion" at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/creationism.htm.
Comments
According to Gods word, God did not create evil. Rather, He allows evil to exist for His sovereign purposes. He did not create a world infested with cancer, AIDS, pain, destruction, and suffering. Instead, the Bible teaches that God created a world that was "very good". A world that included giving humans the choice to obey Him or disobey Him with resulting consequences for each [choice]. He made it clear that if they ate of the tree they would surely die. Adam and Eve sinned which resulted in death entering the world. Now because all have sinned, all will die. The point is that cancer, AIDS, evil, pain etc is not Gods fault, it is ours. God being omniscient knew that this would happen but for His sovereign purposes He allowed it.
The message of the Bible is this: God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness and restore all things to their place. He will create a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness and peace will dwell.
My friend, I ask you, are you ready for this judgment? If God judged you by the Ten Commandments, would you be innocent or guilty? Would you go to heaven or hell? Examine yourself in light of Gods law: Ever lied? Ever stolen? Ever used Gods name in vain? Ever commited adultery (Jesus said that lust is the same as adultery)? Ever hated someone? If you have done these things then by your own admission you are a liar, a thieving blasphemer, and a murderer and adulterer at heart. On judgment day all who are found guilty will be cast off into hell. Will you be found guilty?
The good news is this: God has provided a way for GUILTY sinners to be forgiven. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life." This means that God demonstrated His love toward us in that while we are still guilty sinners, Christ died on behalf of the ungodly and on the third day rose again. When He was on the cross He was actually suffering the punishment for the sins of those who would repent and surrender their lives to Him.
If you repent and believe you will be forgiven of all your sins for Christ has paid for them. If you dont repent, you will pay for your own sins in hell forever. This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I beg you in the name of God: Repent and believe the Gospel!
The Bible fully supports Luther's belief that God is directly responsible for evil.
Here are the passages:
*Moses accuses his God: “O Lord, why hast thou done evil to this people?” and then later demands that Yahweh repent of this evil (Ex. 5:22; 32:12).
*Yahweh declares: “I form light, and I create darkness: I produce well being, and I create evil, I Yahweh do all these things” (Is. 45:7, Anchor Bible);
*“...I am shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you” (Jer.18:11);
*“does evil befall a city, unless the Lord has done it?” (Amos 3:6);
*The prophet Micah speaks of the evil which "has come down from the Lord” (1:12);
*Micah also tells of Yahweh “devising evil” against a particular family (2:3).
*In a dramatic scene in Heaven Yahweh asks: “Who will entice Ahab?” (1 Kgs. 22:20). A spirit (presumably Satan) among the heavenly host volunteers to be “a lying spirit in the mouths of all Ahab's prophets” (v. 22). Yahweh is the one who puts the lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets and it is Yahweh who speaks evil (v. 23).
*Finally, Yahweh takes full responsibility for the evil that has befallen Job, the most righteous man in the world (Job 42:11).
I have no desire to believe or worship a deity who causes evil. It is Yahweh who should repent, not I.
For an alternate view of this great man, see:
http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/
Smear is a very strong word. Why don't you take the effort to demonstrate how I smeared Sen. Brownback? Were my facts incorrect and were my arguments invalid? If you cannot do that, then you are just blowing in the wind.
there is a thin line between truth and reason...
Egypian Darius II
What is of Man is just dat of man. Created by man.
*What is of Divine Providence is sent through Thou True Servants. Divine Fruits must be for the benefit of all.*
Quoted from the Trinitarian Monks
The above statement proves NOTHING! See the comment below on Sea Anomie vs Human.
Where is the evidence that humans descended from ape ancestors. I'll tell you, it is nowhere. If you ever find any, please publish is so that everyone will see it.
Oh, yes, there are reams of 'scientific' documents that SAY men descended from ape like creatures. The trouble is, that say-so is NOT science. The sea anomie had about 18,000 genes, humans have about 20,000 but no-one in their right mind would say we are closely related to the sea anomie. This is just one example of thousands upon thousands of claims by I said so, 'science.'
It is embarrassing to read those absurdities written by very highly educated people.
If the evolutionists wish to settle this argument all they have to do is build us a simple cell from scratch.
All they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
The word you want at the end of your second to last paragraph is "voila," not Walla, which is an Indian word for sweet onion. Or, if you say it twice, it's a beautiful town in Eastern Washington.
Seriously, there have been recent experiments in labs creating very complex molecules, not life of course, but the building blocks of life. These are complex biological systems that creationists say that natural selection cannot produce. I have a list of websites about this but I cannot put my fingers on them right now. I'll post them when I find them.
But here's an interesting exercise that proves that randomness does better than purpose. Mathematicians have proved that the best way to pack spherical balls in a box is to put one in and shake, etc. rather than purposely place each sphere in the box. Voila! The best result comes from chance.
Nick gier
I support your wrestling with pigs; it is not a waste of time. There is arguably no larger issue confronting the the existence of life than the way faith currently prevails over reason for a large majority of the human population. This is not a paradigm that improves either the human or non-human existence. It makes it worse.
We are in a modern dark age where religious beliefs founded on faith trump reason. Reason and scientific theory may not be a panacea - but compared to blind faith, it is a step in the right direction.
I appreciate your courage for discussing things that have been considered off-the-table and sacred for too long.
-r
I applaud the wrestling match here, too. This is not the time or place to just assume that all the "smart folks" agree that science and the theory of evolution are valid, and that means all is well. Apparently-- very apparently-millions of Americans have joined with milllions of Islamic people in deciding that science is absurd, and that we should all just have faith, oppress the unbelievers, and wait for the end. The problem with that is that, up until now, the Islamic clerics have told their followers to just let us contaminate our spirituality by seeking, say, cures for diseases,
or engineering better weaponry, or finding an alternative to polluting forms of energy through the scientific method and the asking of questions. The clerics have assured their people that they would always be able to get, say, antibiotics, or a nice rocket launcher, or an ipod, by buying it from us, while remaining lost in a trance of Allah and purity. That has made the Islamic people feel a little odd, having to depend on the infidels for all their stuff, and it has made a bunch of them real mad, apparently, and a bunch of those real mad ones seem to be both homicidal and suicidal.
But wait, all you madrassa-raised rageoholics! We're coming right behind you, and catching up fast!
We've got the same kind of folks-and Brownback is one of them- a wealthy little Kansas Talibanner-- obsessed with other people's sexuality and their private business, telling his followers the same thing as the jihadi clerics. Answers in Genesis! Creation Museum! Teach the little chilluns that science is from satan! Polaar bears were made on the sixth day, when God created all the large mammals! See I've read the magazine Answers, too! What a load.
Hey, maybe we can buy all our weapons and pharmaceuticals from the Chinese, since they'll be the last rational people on the planet before the damn lights finally go out and we all get transported to the streets of gold and start getting down with the virgins and the wine and watching all the sinners down below get sodomised by raving forked penis demons.
Lord have mercy. I hate to be a geezer, but when I was kid, people who took the Bible literally had their own little churches out in the country, and they were nice people, and fun to talk and work with, and none of them I knew ever wanted to take over a country or force anybody to believe anything, or make laws based on their spiritual convictions. They were, and are, my good friends. They went to doctors when they were hurt or sick and were glad that some folks wanted to study science to make life better or to answer fascinating questions that actually expanded all of our spiritual wonder at the universe and how it came to be.
I never cared whether they believed in evolution or not. Not one of them ever said a mean word to me because I believed in evolution. I never had to worry that one day they'd be President,
and muzzle the Surgeon General when he wanted to discuss birth control or stem cells or why it seems to be getting hotter every year. It was a lot better.
I agree with the above post-we're in a new dark age. And it is so very very mean spirited and stupid. I appreciate Nick for writing about this one part of it.
Hal
Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have joined the faithful.
>>>>>>>>>
Hillary Clinton's voice gets tight as she recalls the mocking response she received when she first spoke in spiritual terms about the longing that people felt to invest in causes larger than self-interest. "I talked about my faith years ago and was pilloried for it," she says, and it is hard to tell if she is more impatient with the conservatives who presumed they held the patent on piety or with the liberals whose worship of diversity all but excluded the devout.
<<<<<<<
She has a double digit lead over the rest of the faithful. Who's your horse?
What is your point?
I am not sure what you mean by stating that they have "joined" the faithful. It is not like they have ever proclaimed to be godless. All three have been religious for their entire adult lives. And is it really a surprise that presidential candidates are attempting to appeal to god loving people in a country where over 90% of the population believes that God is either going to save them or eternally damn them? Short answer . . . No.
Who my horse happens to be is irrelevant to the rather unbelievable fact that people like Sen. Brownback continue to believe that god created the earth 6,000 years ago and that the human species is somehow a distinct creation from the rest of the natural world.
Gidy-up.
You remind me of Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
Your characterization of Senator Brownback is disengeuous. In his NYT Op- Ed here is what he said:
"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. 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.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart...
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.
There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.
Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. 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.
Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man’s origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person."
--------------
This is what he said, not what you say he believes. I think you will find that the major D candidates agree with his thoughts like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Again, who's your horse for '08?
I think you just called me a fool. That is so un-jesus like.
Where is the compassion for your fellow man. I am not a fool, I just haven't seen the light, give me some time and support. Next thing you know I too will be tithing thousands of dollars to the largest organized army of child molesters in the world.
Senator Brownback believes that the process of creation is sustained by the hand of God - he has not a shred of scientific evidence to support this theory - and it doesn't strike him as anti-scientific.
The fact that science does not currently explain the origin of the cosmos is simply not a good argument that the Lord, Zeus, Poisedon, or Alah did it. And whether Senator Brownback and/or Senator Clinton wants to argue otherwise, faith that God did it is not consistent with reason.
I like what Senator Brownback had to say about faith and science addressing different questions, this seems right (unfortunatly he allows his faith to govern questions that science has answers for). And then, in the same breath he asserts that there are "truths" of faith? Its gibberish and its not honest.
I can understand "values, meaning and purpose. . . the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love" without believing that a make believe God created me and the Universe. Anybody can.
If I had to vote today - I think I would vote for John Edwards. But I am not really on anybody's horse and I have no illusions that John Edwards does not believe in make believe gods.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NM9S8O2&show_article=1
"Edwards also said he was against teacher-led prayers in public schools, but he added that "allowing time for children to pray for themselves, to themselves, I think is not only OK, I think it's a good thing."
In the interview, the former North Carolina senator discussed how he lost touch with his day-to-day faith during college, but that it "came roaring back" after the death of his 16-year-old son, Wade, in 1996.
Edwards has often cited religion as a part of his politics, frequently linking his efforts to fight poverty as a matter of morality."
-------
Now, how does he differ from Brownback on matter of faith regarding evolution, politics, prayer in schools, and life?
"Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him."
Am I to understand from your remarks above that the discussion table is open to all?
For some reason the word, 'only' tends to throw me off a little bit.
Maybe you can clarify?
As to your questions: Yes and Yes. They are all basically brainwashed into believing that a make believe deity is in control and that only their particular deity of choice (as opposed to the deities that the rest of the world believes is in charge, and all the past deities that people used to believe were in charge) is able to understand the grand plan for the cosmos.
Their differences lie in the degree that they allow scripture and their belief in the make believe to influence public policy.
That is totally appropriate; and quite frankly, it is the best proof I have ever seen that God exists.
Surely he will be shelved right between superman and wonderwoman.
Baby Jesus, meek and mild,
pray for me and every child.
Be my strength, be my friend
be with me until the end. Amen.
--John Coffey from the Green Mile.
It appears that the Senator's views of faith trump those of science and/or evolution. Not to mention other faiths in general. Would you not agree?
This then leads me to ask: Are the liberals who are excluding the devout, excluding those who are dogmatic and superior? Or are they the ones who are confused?
One of the smartest people I know is Bob Spitzer. He and I came to Gonzaga in the fall of '70. We met on our first day. Later we had a beer together in the dorm. He and I were both business students and became study partners for accounting, finance, and economic classes. He was then and continues to be genius with a center for sharp-eyed pragmatism. Along with others of our group we even got into the habit of having a Friday night beer with one of our business professors while watching Wall Street Week. Bob was also a man of science and philosophy and could converse on any subject. After we left Gonzaga Bob joined the seminary and became a Jesuit priest. Some years later he came back to Gonzaga and took over the leadership. Under his reign Gonzaga has become financially sound and has established itself as a great institution of science and engineering in addition to its other offerings. Bob provides the best example I know of how an intelligent, learned person could have a sharp eye for business, strongly support scientific learning while aligning one's life with faith. I don't wish to communicate that I know Senator Brownback, but I do know Bob.
I do respect your view on the alignment of faith and science. As we all know, through science, faith and cultural migration, we have discovered the diversity of the world. Faith in religion or faith in evolution has gotten us to where we are now. History tells all.
However, with regards to Politics, Religion and Evolution, this political agenda you speak of appears to be the problem painted by the Senator and now yourself. It is rather confusing. You are confusing Science and Evolution just like the Senator. That Faith should somehow permeate Politics and that people of Faith (who barely if at all know their Roots) can lecture others on Evolution. What is confusing is that your Faith continues to this day to be the only one true Faith that knows about Creation. This is the fundamental problem with regards to Evolution. Faith is not stagnant, nor is Evolution. As Prof. Gier pointed out in his article, Evolution is a matter of 'chance' just like your Faith is.
On the topic of chances. If we look at the Evolution or Roots of your Faith, chances are, the Senator, Fr. Spritzer, nor you speak any Latin or Italian. If we follow the Roots of the Church back to it's homeland, chances are, none of you speak any Hebrew or Aramaic. Chances are, none of you have ever visited the homeland nor ever will. Chances are, none of you have even visited the homeland of the language you speak now. Chances are, you amongst the other members of your Faith have blocked out the elimination of other Faiths in your way.
Don't you find it difficult to honestly discuss your Faith's ideals and how they have continually been injected into the minds and psyches of peoples across the globe in both Politics and Society?
Should you have forgotten, here is a little passage for you to research:
Deuteronomy 13:7–11
There is a fine line when walking the path between Politics and Religion. Certain Religions or Faiths have been very detrimental to others along that diverse path...but I suspect you know that...