Faith purifies reason...

What I Think About Evolution

By SAM BROWNBACK, New York Times

Washington

IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.

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. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

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 piece is continued here. LP NOTE: Tom ferreted out this article in his daily perusal of the New York Times. Reading it I have to admit that I had to comb through several paragraphs of gobbledygook to find the essence of Sen. Brownback's point, which is:

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.

Journalists and politicians communicate in different ways. Journalists are taught to write in the "inverse pyramid" style — that is, frontload the primary information in the story, leaving the less important stuff till the end.

If this article is any indication, it would seem that politicians write in the "diamond" style — that is, state your major point somewhere in the middle, between a beginning and end that are intended on the one hand to obfuscate while on the other appeal to differing constituencies. We can also call this the "neopolitan ice cream" style of writing — equal amounts of vanilla, strawberry and chocolate so as to give the broadest range of tastes at least something they'll like.

Obviously, the senator was caught off-guard by the "Do you believe in evolution?" question, which was no doubt cleverly intended to put the leading GOP candidates into a no-win situation: Say "yes" and you turn off the religious fundamentalists in the party; say "no" and you turn off the rational thinkers in the country, who (thank God!) are still in the majority. Perhaps only Ron Paul could have won on this one.

Brownback's handlers I'm sure realized the trickiness of the question right away, which is what led to Brownback's measured response in the Times.

Whether this clarification will help or hurt his chances is anyone's guess. Regardless of political outcome, what this whole discussion of God and evolution does indicate is how far our politicians have gone to kowtow to an element of our society that ironically wants to turn the U.S. into an Iranian-style theocracy.

While Brownback is no Almadinejad, he may be as close as an American equivalent thereto as we have. Except, of course, to the man who currently inhabits the White House, whose actions in the next few years will have far more effect on Brownback's chances of becoming president than any apologia in the New York Times.

Stay tuned, as the democracy vs. theocracy debate won't end soon....