The Candidates
Republican Kansas Senator and presidential hopeful Sam Brownback, in an opinion piece?appearing in today’s New York Times, has wisely taken the opportunity to qualify his previously expressed disbelief in evolution.
[D]uring 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 [Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo being the others], I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.
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.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us.
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.
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.
Whether this?will allow Brownback, a candidate currently languishing between one and two percent in national polls, to recast?himself as?more palatable to the masses, or appealing to a socially liberal frontrunner in need of a running mate who would?bring ideological and geographical balance to the ticket, remains to be seen.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:48 am
Why in the world is Brownback reopening this debate? Doesn’t he have something else more important to talk about? Perhaps the surge or immigration?
May 31st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Brownback is the religious right candidate. This is his niche. Why would he be talking about the surge? He has no opportunity for growth there. His only chance of performing well is to take away enough religious conservatives from the other candidates.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:22 am
Pat Buchanan was so much better than Brownback on this issue…and he didn’t need to bow down to the NY TIMES, either
May 31st, 2007 at 11:36 am
Aron,
The question “Do you believe in evolution” is simply too vague. During the debate Brownback likely interpreted this as “Do you believe in evolution theory as the origin of man”. Romney, on the other hand, likely interpreted this as “Do you believe in evolution as a biological process”. Hence the opposite answers, even though both men believe in micro-evolution and in a divine creator of mankind.
It’s not backtracking. It’s just a belief that is more complex than a “yes” or “no” answer to a vague question. Secularists should be able to grasp that.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:36 am
I’m embarrassed to be a Republican.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:48 am
Good anaylsis, murphy.
But, really, what is the relevance of a candidate’s view on evolution to the Presidential race?
May 31st, 2007 at 11:50 am
It’s OK, David, just take solace, like I do, in the fact that he’s not going to be placing above sixth place in any primaries or caucuses…
May 31st, 2007 at 11:51 am
Robin, on that point (#6), I’d definitely agree with you and Jason (#1).
May 31st, 2007 at 11:51 am
Murphy, I think the difference in how the question is interpreted is striking. If you have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the term ‘evolution,’ you’re more likely to raise your hand to the question. It shows which candidates are religious fanatics and which are just religious. The way the candidate interprets the question has a lot to do with their religious beliefs.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:55 am
appealing to a socially liberal frontrunner in need of a running mate who would bring ideological and geographical balance to the ticket,
Curiously, Brownback has gone a little easy on Giuliani in the debates.
Murphy,
Romney may well believe in macro-evolution too, to the extent he cares enough about the subject to have an opinion.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:56 am
appealing to a socially liberal frontrunner in need of a running mate who would bring ideological and geographical balance to the ticket,
We’ve noticed.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:57 am
Wrong, TLG.
It doesn’t require a knee jerk fanatic reaction to the word “evolution” to interpret the question as Brownback did. All it requires is the most basic knowledge of the debate concerning the teaching curiculum of students in Kansas. You know, the state where Brownback is from?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Jason, It has as much to do with the Presidency as if a candidate came out and said he believes the earth is flat: Glaringly unfit for leading a modern civilization.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
That’s not just me talking, that’s a broad spectrum of educated America.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Although I’m normally an opponent of public education and a proponent of vouchers, if more religious zealots find ways of brainwashing their kids out of scientific knowleddge, then it’s a strong reason to SUPPORT public education with creationism banned. It’s a threat to civilization.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
DavidB,
Watever your beliefson the topic are, it’s a dumb move to bring it up in a NYTimes op-ed. Just a waste of time, and to me it says where he would like to see the debate go.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Feeling a tad dramatic today, David B?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
But if you believe in microevolution, you believe in macroevolution.
Macroevolution is microevolution over billions of years.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
David,
The issue for most of us uneducated hicks that still believe in God is the way in which Evolution is taught in schools.
I graduated High School in 1993. I can tell you that the way in which I was instructed on this matter is that man evolved from molecules in a primordial stew to our current form-end of story. No room for God, no room for doubt, the debate is over (kind of reminds me of another debate in the public sphere right now.)
It’s “The Theory of Evolution”, not the “Undeniable Fact of Evolution”. There are large holes in the theory, for which Science currently has no good explanations.
I personally believe in Evolution, but I believe that God initiated and guided the process. You may think less of me for it, but that’s were I stand.
If you (or anyone else’s) mind is open enough to consider listening to another point of view on this topic, please read Lee Strobel’s “Case for a Creator” which is probably the best book written in defense of Intelligent Design.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
That’s fine, Nusrat, but none of that disproves the belief that God created man.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Kavon,
I don’t have as much of a problem with the modern/liberal view of religion where God was the creator and all of modern science is simply his plan.
I have a problem with literal interpretation, believing the earth is 6,000 years old, etc., which destroys children’s ability to think, and would pave the way for Christians to take their religion as seriously as they did in the Dark Ages and as seriously as the Islamists take theirs.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Nusrat,
I really don’t want to get into this debate again, but beleif in microevolution does not equal beleif in macroevolution. “Microevolution” would be more appropriately labeled “adaptation”, meaning that genetic patterns within one species which are better suited to the environment survive at a higher rate than those genetic paterns which are not…nobody disputes that.
On the other hand, “macroevolution” postulates that the basic genetic makeup of a species can change over time through the process of microevolution. This has yet to be proven based on the fact that we have never seen a genetic mutation which changes the number of chromosomes on the genes of a species (which is basically what it would take to say that a new species evolved).
“Macroevolution” is NOT the process of “microevolution” over billions of years, but rather an unproven, SPECULATED result of that process over billions of years. Hence, it is perfectly plausible to accept so-called “microevolution” without accepting “macroevolution”.
I’m not angling to get into an evolutionary debate here, because that is not the topic at hand. But you can’t just say that Brownback must beleive in “macro” if he beleives in “micro”. Personally, I think this debate is totally irrelevant.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I came away from the Brownback column unsure of just exactly what the senator believes on this topic, and I agree with those who say he really shouldn’t have brought it up again, especially if he just planned to give a vague and unclear assessment of his position. I suspect that the senator simply didn’t want voters to assume that he is under the impression that all life on earth was created out of the ether in present form by a deity in six calendar days.
In any event, the Brownbackian view on evolution seems to be a belief in micro but not macro evolution. This, of course, is quite illogical. Macro-evolution is simply what you get after long, long periods of micro-evolution. As Derb pointed out today over at NRO, in order to believe in micro but not macro, you’d have to believe that something STOPS the process of evolution before it reaches speciation, i.e., before the population in question has become so different from other members of the species that it can no longer reproduce with the parent species and is, in fact, an entirely different species. It’s sort of like saying, “I believe that little snowballs can form from snow rolling down a hill, but not really big snowballs!” Again, for this to be true, something would have to stop the snowball from rolling once it reached a certain size. Not sure what that something is. As such, it seems that belief in micro-evolution is logically inconsistent with disbelief in macro-evolution.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
David,
You are talking about Creationism, which is vastly different than Intelligent Design. Please take the time to read “Case for a Creator”.
I really believe you will have a different opinion of those of us who believe in God if you hear what we believe from one of us, and not through the filter of our critics.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
David B,
If Christians take their releigion seriously, I don’t see why that would be a problem. In fact, it’s their (god-given?) right under the Constitution and it in no way infringes on your rights.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Palin: Because taking religion seriously demands theocracy, as history demonstrates. What caused the Dark Ages, if not Christianity? That’s what happens when the Bible dominates.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Taking religion seriously does not demand theocracy.
I find it interesting that it’s the secularists here who make the accusations of religious folks not using their higher thought processes…yet it’s also some of the same secularists who display the most dramatic hyperbole and closed-mindedness.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“What caused the Dark Ages, if not Christianity?”
It a lot to do with the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
“Because taking religion seriously demands theocracy”
Gee, where is that verse about “rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and rendering unto G-d what is G-d’s”
I take my religion very seriously, and yes, the scriptures “dominate” my life…and I am not a theocrat, nor do I have much appreciation for the “religious right”. Religion is primarily a PERSONAL choice…and you have yet to answer my claim that such a choice is the absolute personal right of every American under the Constitution.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Palin: That’s because your view of religion is still tempered by the concept of individual rights. But when you take the Bible literally, you’ll not find that concept in there.
In fairly recent history, the Bible was successfully used to deny interracial marriage and defend slavery.
If you take it literally, you move back in that direction. Once you’ve succeeded, the next step is back to the Puritan age. The next step is back to the Dark Ages.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Murphy, why did it take the Enlightenment, then John Locke and the Founding Fathers, and then modern liberalism, 100’s of years combined, to finally convince Christians to STOP practicing theocracy?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
David B,
Sir, I do take the scriptures literally…you would be suprised at the amount of individual rights granted by them.
“the Bible was successfully used to deny interracial marriage and defend slavery.”
…By people who were not taking it literally (If you can disprove, please include Biblical quotes).
For the thrid time, please tell me why you wish to override to override the Constituion’s garauntee of absolute religious freedom, then defend your opinion with law rather than ideology.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Not the evolution thing again…
Well, I just wanted to say that I, along with 50-60% or more of Americans, believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I happen to believe that good science verifies that theory moreso than the theory that the world is 5 billion years old. And no, I’m not going to explain why here, because this is a political site, not a scientific or religious one. Laugh at me if you want, but I like to think of myself as a relatively intelligent human being.
I also wanted to say that whatever somebody believes about evolution and creation matters absolutely zero to me when selecting a President.
Evolutionists have been decrying the danger of creationists for decades now.
Creationists have been decrying the danger of evolutionists for decades now.
Guess what? There’s no inherent danger in either view that’s going to destroy civilization as we know it. It doesn’t really matter…..
May 31st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
And for the record, yes, there are those relgious individuals who wish to practice theocracy. However, it is not a universal trait among Christians or most other religions.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Palin,
Here you go:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/denomchg2.htm
Click on the links for more specifics.
The Constitution guarantees religious freedom, but what does that mean given the success Christian theocracy have had under the Constitution? And if the Christian fundamentalist movement really takes off, who’s to say how the Constitution might get amended?
If a large sector of society is deadset on religious zealotry, a Constitution is not going to be able to stand up against it.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Heavy, if you think “good science” supports the earth being less than 6,000 years old, I suggest you take a geology class.
That someone as seemingly intelligent, educated, and functional as you believes such a thing is a great example of the POWER of the fundamentalist interpretation to completely destroy the capacity to think.
Once that’s gone, so are individual rights and modern civilization.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
DavidB,
Why the personal remarks for someone religious beliefs? I don’t think that’s very appropriate here.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Jason, because of the rising power religion is having over our politics– and my rights.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
David B,
Nice try, but there are no Bible verses quoted in that article, and none so far in the links I have clicked on . The only truthful claim is that the Bible forbids homosexuality. Use of the “Curse of Ham” to justify racism is intellectually dishonest, only Calvinist translations add a passage about the Curse of Ham involving Ham being given black skin…it is not in the original manuscript.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I don’t think Brownback did any “backtrack” on evolution; he only says he accepts “microevolution.” That changes nothing, as John Derbyshire pointed out today in his post in the Corner in National Review Online. Brownback is one of those anti-scientific guys whose leadership of the Republican party in Kansas has so damaged the party in that state. There’s nothing conservative about being anti-science. The longer that conservatism is identified with being anti-science, the weaker the movement will be.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
And I know a lot of fundamentalist Christians, VERY FEW have theocratic designs about the future of America.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Palin: Do a little more Googling. Are you really ignorant of the fact that over 95%+ of its history, the major spokesmen for Christianity have successfully used the Bible to suppress women and minorities? To outlaw vast realms of sexual behavior? etc? etc?
That what you know as Christianity today is a tame version constituting less than 5% of its history?
What’s to prevent it from going back?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
David B,
Just because spokesmen for Christianity historically used the Bible to validate certain practices, does NOT mean that they were correct in doing so. Surely you understand this?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
…or in other words, it does not mean the Bible ACTUALLY supported their claims. Anyone can find and twist the appropriate quotes for their purposes.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I don’t give a krud what so-called “major-spokesmen” have said…I care what the Bible actually says.
If you are paranoid about some Christian conspiracy to take over the world, nothing I can say will convince you. Just don’t trample on their rights just because you think that, sometime in the future, they MIGHT repress yours…that would be a little Orwellian, don’t you think?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
murphy: Not correct by what standard? For those who rely on faith and literal interpretation, by what standard could they have refuted the prevailing opinion as to what the Bible said?
Weren’t those opinions defeated in modern times by a rejection of literal interpretation?
Yet literal interpretation is on the rise. What’s to prevent our return to theocracy?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Palin: I’m not for trampling on anyone’s rights. I’m for keeping religion out of politics.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Out of curiousity, who, or which movements, do you credit for the current, tame version of Christianity that tries to respects the rights of minorities?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
David B,
You have your facts backward. The first attempt at truly literal interpretation of the Bible (in my opinion) did not come about until the Protestant Reformation. And Christianity as a whole has been becoming more tolerant of individual rights since then.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
And if the Bible and its interpreters can brainwash HeavyM into thinking the earth is
May 31st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
And there is no history of theocracy to return to. The dark ages were times of fuedalism and authoritarianism, religion was only occasionally used as a justification (other than the Papal States in Italy)…Usually the only justification given for the way things worked in the dark ages was ham-fisted repression.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
less than 6,000 years old, what’s to prevent people from being convinced the Bible does not condone individual rights? Because it’s chock full of evidence against individual rights. If it’s all about faith, rather than reason, on what grounds can individual rights be defended?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Palin: Surely you know virtually all Christian leaders defended that repression throughout its entire history, until sometime in the 20th Century.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Even George HW Bush said athiests should not be allowed to be citizens, and that was in very recent history.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
That’s it, I don’t have time for this worthless argument. Again, I really don’t care what “leaders” you are talking about. The Bible itself does not promote repression, period, end of story. Beesides, you are repeating the same aruments over and ovr again even though I have refuted them sevceral times.
Good Day, sir.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Typical evasion of the faithful. The Bible is CHOCK FULL of support for repression.
You are too smart to not acknowledge the history of Christianity.
If you want to defend the modern, liberal concept of Christianity, that’s great. It’s far less dangerous, for now.
To evade its history is downright scary. Shows how powerful unthinking faith is, just as it with HeavyM and the age of the earth.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
If it’s all about faith, rather than reason, on what grounds can individual rights be defended?
DavidB, frankly, I don’t think you know squat about biblical exegesis. Anyway, reason offers no grounds for individual rights. Individual rights is a premise, not a conclusion. That’s why the Declaration refers to individual rights as “self-evident.”
Far from subverting individual rights, faith provides the one sure foundation for them. Let me quote the Declaration again:
all men are created equal
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
May 31st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Even George HW Bush said athiests should not be allowed to be citizens, and that was in very recent history.
I bet you a hundred dollars he didn’t.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I hate this debate. I don’t have a problem with the evolutionary explanation for speciation. That has nothing to do with my faith in creation by God.
I don’t see how accepting the possibility that humans evolved from apes has anything to do with God or the Bible.
I’ve never understood why elements of the Evangelical community have wasted so much effort on an issue so far out of left field.
I really don’t feel comfortable with the young-earthers’ instance in ignoring science or atheists’ instance in pretending science is relevant to faith.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
So, David, care to tell us all what the primary basis for the motivation of the abolitionists in America was?
Preemptive rebuttal: Nearly every civilization in history, religious AND not religious, has had slavery. Who were the people who started the movement to end it, though?
May 31st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I’m with you, econ, in 58. Just can’t stand the atheists’ holier-than-thou, simple-minded, hateful, hyperbolic, dogmatic anti-religious bigotry. I feel the need to qualify that by saying I can’t stand the reverse, either, but, upon reflection, I won’t: the snobbery, presumptuousness, superficial analysis, and venom that comes from the atheists is in a league of its own.
Anti-religion is its own religion itself in many ways.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Henry Heavner:
A simple Google search would have saved you $100:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=RuW&q=george+bush+atheists+citizens&btnG=Search
May 31st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I’m not seeing any reputable sources there.
But I have to apologize. I thought you were talking about the current George Bush, not his father.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Sherman’s Website provides the document # at the Bush Library.
It was all over news at the time, which I remember exceedingly well, being shocked and appalled.
Notice also it was never denied, even when the Administration was asked to take it back.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:25 pm
David B.,
since I don’t have access to the Bush library, that doesn’t help me much.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
DavidB,
It has nothing to do with your rights, just what is appropriate. There is no need to knock on someone who perhaps is the best example on this blog of a blogging-gentleman.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
The potential of a theocracy has nothing to do with my rights, just what is appropriate????
G-ddamn, we have George Orwell right here. Threat noted.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Palin writes,
“On the other hand, “macroevolution” postulates that the basic genetic makeup of a species can change over time through the process of microevolution. This has yet to be proven based on the fact that we have never seen a genetic mutation which changes the number of chromosomes on the genes of a species (which is basically what it would take to say that a new species evolved). ”
Sorry, but you dont know what you are talking about.
First off, genes are parts of chromosomes, not “chromosomes on genes”.
Secondly, there is no requirement for the number of genes, or chromosomes to be different in order for there to be a new species. All you need is for different parts of a previous species to no longer interbreed with eachother. You end up with “microevolution” occuring independently in either half of the species and eventual divergence sufficient to preclude ever getting back together again.
If you are stuck on chromosomes though, there are plenty of examples (mainly in plants, but not exclusivly) where speciation happens instantaneously. Through an accident of meiosis, offspring end up with a double set of chromosomes (tetraploids) (i.e instead of 2 sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, they have 4 sets, 2 from each parent). These individuals cannot reproduce with normal plants. Many of our crop plants have evolved so.