The
Theology Of Senator Brownback
By Thomas Riggins
09 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Personally
I don’t think Sen. Sam Brownback from Kansas has much of a chance
of getting the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. But you never know.
Who would have thought someone of such a low caliber as George Bush
would have gotten it in 2000?
In the first debate of the
Republican candidates, Brownback raised his hand when the question was
put as to which candidates did not believe in “evolution.”
Now he has written an article, “What I Think About Evolution”,
in the New York Times published as an op-ed piece on 5-31-07.
Brownback wrote the article
to clarify his views. It is not, I think, a good article for a man who
wants to be president for it shows that he has no understanding of science
and that he does not use valid evidence or reasons to ground his beliefs.
We have just had two terms of such a president, who has left the country
in a mess, and we can ill afford another president whose views are not
grounded in reality.
Brownback thinks that the
"premise" behind the question is-- either you come out for
evolution or "one must necessarily believe that God created the
world and everything in it in six 24 hour days." For a man who
says he wants to bring "seriousness" to the discussion, he
is off to a bad start.
First we need a proper definition
of "evolution." Scientifically speaking, the word refers to
Darwin's theory of changes in species, and the development of new species,
by random natural selection. This is the scientific biological evolutionary
theory that has obscurantists, reactionaries and fundamentalists up
in arms. There are other opponents besides these.
Anyone who believes in "design"
is opposed to this theory-- not just the unsophisticated yokels who
think every thing was made in six 24-hour days. The "premise"
Brownback thinks the question entails is incorrect. He says so himself.
But he set it up to make himself look more serious than he actually
is, as we shall see.
Brownback says he believes
there can be no contradiction between faith and reason. Let's see what
he means by this and if he really does believe it.
The issue is: does science
explain the origin of the universe and/or man, without the need to postulate
a "creator", or is the postulate of a "creator"
needed. Brownback's position that faith and reason (science) do not
contradict each other is based upon the fact that he just assumes that
there is a creator therefore, since that is a fact, what is there for
science to contradict.
"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."
In reality, science seeks to understand the nature of the universe,
in practice it does not appeal to a "creator" and Brownback's
assumption of a "created order" has no scientific warrant
at all. And he seems not to understand that "reason" has little
to do with faith.
There is no contradiction
because "the spiritual order and the material order were created
by the same God." Well, there is nothing like assuming in your
premises the very conclusion you seek to support by your argument. Reason
is obviously not being applied in this type of thinking (valid reason
at any rate.)
Brownback fails to realize
that there is a real antithesis between science and faith when it comes
to trying to understand the physical world and the place of humans within
it. "Faith," he says, "supplements the scientific method
by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose."
The problem here is a confusion between the descriptive function of
science and the prescriptive role of faith.
For example, science can
describe the values held by Christians and those held by different groups
of non-Christians, what these values mean to the different groups, and
what purpose (i.e., function) they play in different cultures. But if
these are faith based values, science cannot say one faith based system
is right and another wrong. If there was a compelling reason that showed
one was right it would no longer be a matter of faith.
Brownback thinks he can reconcile
the faith/science dichotomy, but he does it by rejecting science. Here
is what he says about evolution. "If belief in evolution means
simply assenting to micro evolution, small changes over time within
a species [such as a diminishing ability to comprehend scientific theories
in Kansans], I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe
it to be true." But he knows that that is not at all what the theory
of evolution is about.
He says he rejects the view
that "holds no place for a guiding intelligence" and that
is "exclusively materialistic" and "deterministic."
But he seems to reject more than that. Some religious folk believe in
a guiding intellect and also that, e.g., \ humans evolved from ape like
ancestors. Brownback doesn't say if he goes for that. His concept of
micro evolution ("small changes within a species") would seem
to leave Lucy and Homo erectus out of our family tree.
Brownback says the question
of "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."
Here he is simply wrong.
It is precisely due to advances in genetics, DNA research, physical
anthropology, and a host of related sciences, that the question of human
origins, and life on earth in general, is primarily a question for the
empirical sciences. If there is to be no conflict between religion and
science then theology will have to evaluate the discoveries of science
not try to ignore them or reject them and pretend it is better suited
to give answers based on faith (i.e., based on nothing but a traditional
belief from the pre-scientific past).
Science demands an open minded
attitude. It bases its conclusions on the best available evidence. Brownback
is wholly lacking in the open minded spirit of science. Only if science
agrees with his faith based opinions will he accept it. "Man,"
he says, "was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness
unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible
with this truth [there are none] are a welcome addition to human knowledge.
Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth [no matter how firmly
established by modern science], should be firmly rejected as an atheistic
theology posing as science."
An "atheistic theology"
is a curious term. It is even more curious to think the modern science
of evolutionary biology is any kind of theology at all. Brownback is
a US Senator and could (God forbid!) become president. Be prepared for
a new Dark Age. The faggot is not far from the fanatic.
Thomas Riggins
is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at
[email protected].
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.