I just finished reading Sam Brownback's opinion piece, What I Think About Evolution, in the New York Times. It was… strange.

Brownback, of course, was one of the three Republicans to indicate that they did not believe in evolution when asked during the Republican presidential debate. His Times piece seems to be an attempt to clarify, or perhaps to back away from, or possibly to defend, that position. I've read it several times and I can't tell.

He says:

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.

Fair enough. And:

Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

Great! Let's be friends. We can end the incredibly divisive, yet completely pointless, debate about whether we came from monkeys or not. But:

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.

OK, wait a second. First of all, to be clear, the question in the debate wasn't "Do you believe in microevolution within a species," or "Do you believe that the world is guided by an intelligent being." It was "Do you believe in evolution," and evolution, in this case, would seem to mean the entire theory as currently accepted by the scientific community. So, since this theory includes more than just microevolution, Brownback rejects it. So far so good.

But what happened to the part about "limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism" being a bad thing? In Brownback's view, he must either limit his acceptance of evolution to changes within a species, or deny God. And so now we're back to science and religion being at odds again. So much for the happy reunion.

Isn't there any other way to jive evolution with the existence of God? Evolution is pretty nifty - it's the kind of system that any God I can think of would have come up with to make sure things kept working properly. If you believe that God created Earth, then why not evolution, too - just more evidence of divinity at work. Right?

Then:

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.

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.

Okay, so what about the other, less passionate advocates? Might they, perhaps, have a theory that does not dismiss divine causality? Remember, "there is no one single theory of evolution." (Oh, and the "fueding?" It's called scientific discussion, and it happens when you're allowed to ask questions and express doubt.)

See, Brownback wants to say that he's bringing science and faith together. But he's not trying very hard. He chooses to take a very deterministic interpretation of evolutionary theory, and then he proceeds to show why most of it is incompatible with his beliefs. But there are many religious scientists who don't have trouble reconciling their beliefs with the entirety of evolutionary theory. Brownback is right that faith and science can coexist. But they can coexist even better than he thinks - marveling at the complexity of the universe and believing in a being that can create such a universe are two sides of the same coin.

What's clear is that Brownback was right to raise his hand in that debate - his version of evolution is not supported by scientific evidence. But the problem is not science's inability to incorporate faith. It is his faith's inability to incorporate what science has shown us to be true.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 1st, 2007 at 12:30 am and is filed under News and politics, Science and technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.