No, Sam Brownback Doesn't Believe in Evolution

[ProSense]

Thursday, May 31, 2007

No, Sam Brownback Doesn't Believe in Evolution

JB

Sam Brownback's essay in today's New York Times is an op-ed written by a skillful politician, trying to make the reader believe that he is merely attacking the materialistic and deterministic emphasis in science without doubting evolutionary processes, when in fact the real problem is that he just doesn't believe in evolution at all. The key passage is here:

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. 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.

Brownback is denying that humans have a common ancestor with other species, because he only agrees to small changes within a species. The rest of the discussion, about materialism and determinism distracts from this central point. It offers a false dichotomy. One might think that the hand of God is involved in evolution in some way and still believe that mankind evolved from previous forms of life. It is this latter point that Brownback wishes to deny, because he wants to insist that mankind is special. As a result, he is willing to acknowledge only that species might experience "microevolution," i.e., small changes, without evolving into new species.

Brownback's views are clever political sophistry, claiming to reject a false choice, but in fact offering his own false choice. He is not a defender of faith against science. He is a defender of ignorance.

[KG]

1. he's a profeesional politician, he has no real beliefs beyond what will get him elected.

[mike_c]

2. "He is a defender of ignorance."

Yep. That's what it all boils down to-- the willfully ignorant reveling in their blindness. Na na na, I can't hear you....

[TheLeftyMom]

3. "Sam Brownback's essay in today's New York Times is an op-ed written by a skillful politician"

Then who the hell wrote it? Certainly not THAT idiot. Good lord, how a state that can claim Sebeilius and Phil Stacey (lol) can be saddled with him. He's worse than the Toto jokes.

[Az]

4. They really ought to ask him how old he thinks the earth is

That would put a pretty good dent in his armor.

[sakabatou]

6. Show him the bones of our evolutionary

ancestors. Who knows, maybe he'll say the debil did it.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Anyone who is truly stupid enough to believe that there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark...

won't be swayed by a pile of bones chipped out of a rock.

[sakabatou]

13. Damn...

[Buzz Clik]

16. Yeah. Me, too. I keep wanting to say, "Could anyone possibly be worse than Bush?"

And then I remember Brownback.

:silly: :scared: :crazy: :scared:

[Az]

17. I think I would take a zealot over a sociopath

At least with the zealot there is something you can appeal to on some matters. With a sociopath there is simply no way to connect.

[rasputin1952]

14. If you ask him what shape the earth is, I am sure he will say...

"Flat, everyone knows that!"

:D

[BurtWorm]

5. What a crock of impacted dinosaur doo.

"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."

If you didn't want to limit it to that choice, why did you raise your hand, you asshole? Because you were PANDERING to your part's ignoramuses on the extreme right--i.e., the base.

[Johonny]

7. I don't get it

He agrees with a very small part of the evolution process, then states he doesn't believe in something that has nothing to do with evolution.

[IChing]

8. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1004164&mesg_id=1004164

[Buzz Clik]

9. What a friggin' weed.

"If, by evolution, you mean the fact that I cannot deny that certain species have been observed to genetically adapt to environmental changes, well, I'd be a complete dumbass to deny that. However, I can certainly take that standard evangelical, hard-core Christian attitude of saying, 'If you haven't reproduced it in the lab, it didn't happen'. Pretty slick strategy, doncha think? I mean, consider this -- no way in heck will anyone be able to induce the evolution of a chimp into a human in anything short of geologic time, right? So, the Darwinist scientists can take their fossil record and ram it where the sun don't shine. Personally I don't give a flying fudge that there is ZERO physical for the presence of a deity; that's why they call it faith. And don't even try to debate me on this subject -- I can do this mercurial boogie all day long."

[opihimoimoi]

10. He sucked for Pure Fantasy... clings to Creation... rejects Evolution?

And most of them Pub Candidates are the same way?

OMG....

Delusion has gone Ebolaesque.....damn.....

[Island Blue]

11. Stunning.

If Inhofe is the chairman of the Flat Earth Caucus, Brownback must surely be the vice-chair. :crazy:

[ProgressiveFool]

15. I think he's actually more concerned with refuting the

"theory" of Heliocentricism.

[Vickers]

18. He's trying to have it both ways.

Look, either you believe in science, or you believe in fairy tales.

That's it.

Now, you can choose to believe that YOUR fairy helped SHAPE evolution :eyes: but you really either have to believe one or the other.

I'd also like to ask him why he is cleanshaven if he has in fact read Leviticus. :rofl: