Dr. Brownback Explains Acceptable Science

It appears that Republic Party Presidential Candidate Sen. Sam Brownback is a bit more thin-skinned than we'd though. After weeks of being laughed at by the rational world (ie- not the GOP base) for raising his hand is response to a debate question asking who does not "believe" in evolution. Now he seeks to stifle the laughing and appear reasonable in his op-ed piece in today's New York Times: What I Think About Evolution

What he provides is insight into an arrogant primate species.

Brownback opines that our "sound-bite political culture" leaves his belief in magical creation open to confusion. He begins his explanation by creating his first false dichotomy:

The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days.

First, Senator, one does not "believe" in science. One either accepts the vast results of years and decades of study or one ignores the evidence. Second, if you do not accept the postulations of the scientists who study evolution, then whether you think the world was created in 144 hours or over 144 years is your choice. You don't have to "believe" any particular story of creation if scientific research is not a criteria for you.

Brownback then explains that he accepts science, so long as it conforms to his spiritual beliefs, stating

...we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. 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.

The bible stories, or whatever source one prefers, cannot be contradicted by science because both have the same writer. Gobblygook masquerading as reasoned conversation. For this notion to hold any water, we must first ALL agree on accepting the same God and the same stories associated with that God.

Then he returns to the false choice.

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.

If science is simple and tidy, then Brownback is for it. But complex science is just rampaging atheism and he'll have none of it.

He has now left his base their opening- If the science is too hard to understand you can ignore it and go with story-time. And then he offers what the GOoPer base craves- confirmation that they are the most specialest living beings in the universe.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

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.

We are no accident. Any scientific theory that contradicts this tenet must be rejected as heretical. Sam, here's your flaw, scientific theories do not have "philosophical presuppositions". They are based on the scientific method and proofs based on facts. Philosophy is for sophists like yourself to legislate.

Finally, he reaches out to his base, just to make sure they don't mistake his appearance of logic with actually being logical.

I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion.

I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos.

Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Well, someone is certainly posing, Sam. But I don't think its the scientific community. Next week, Dr. Sam explains why global warming can't be real unless its based on certain biblical truths.