…and this is a 
Sam Brownback, defender of the faith
Category: Creationism • Politics
Posted on: May 31, 2007 12:13 PM, by PZ Myers
Sam Brownback has an op-ed in the NY Times today, in which he explains with much straining at gnats why he was one of the Republicans who did not believe in evolution. Short summary: he reveals his own misconceptions about the biology, and mainly pounds the drum on how important Faith and Religion and God are. It will be persuasive to people who are already convinced that God is the most important thing in the universe, right down to what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, but it underscores my conviction that faith is the enemy, the source of many of our problems…such as the promotion of incompetent politicians to positions of power on the fuel of the ethereal Spirit.
Get ready. It's a whole succession of reiterated platitudes about how important faith is, with no evidence that it actually is — we are, apparently, supposed to take that on faith.
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.
There is a fundamental contradiction. Faith says that the way to get answers is by revelation, accepting authority, and dogma. Science says that the way to get answers is by examining the evidence critically, testing hypotheses with experiment in the natural world, and by constantly reevaluating and revising our ideas to make them more accurate. It isn't just that the two arrive at different, conflicting answers—for instance, that the earth is 6000 years old vs. 4.5 billion years old—but that their methods conflict. Scientists will not accept a random idea because someone contemplated and decided a deep "Truth" appealed to him: a kernel of observation and evidence is required.
It is disingenuous for Brownback to claim that science and religion do not contradict each other, given that religion contradicts itself. Which "same god" created the material order? Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Thunderbird, Jesus, Ymir? Which sect's interpretation will we accept: Catholic, Protestant, Sunni, Shi'a, Scientologist, Mormon? There are even two accounts of the creation in the book of Genesis that differ from each other greatly—which one is the "spiritual truth"? Most importantly, how will you objectively evaluate these explanations?
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.
Please, Senator Brownback, define "faith". You keep throwing that word around as if it actually has some substantial meaning, but it seems to me that all you're doing is inserting an emotionally-loaded buzzword that has its import dunned into your voters from birth to death, while avoiding saying anything of significance about it.
I know the scientific method. Faith isn't in it, or anywhere near it, although you could make a good case that doubt and suspicion are everywhere in it. The scientific method is a tool to counter faith and intuition and other such misleading biases that investigators bring to their research.
There is also some confusion about what faith can accomplish. I reject faith, yet somehow I have value and meaning in my life, I feel empathy for those who suffer, and I love. I do not need your dogma to understand those matters. I do so by observing my own life, the lives of others, the consequences of actions on people—by considering just the material world, not assuming an irrelevant supernatural one.
Brownback is intentionally, I suspect, muddling his words. He is replacing "compassion" with the nonsense word, "faith". Compassion is a human value possessed by scientists and by citizens, atheists and the devout; we do not need faith, that bamboozling misleading sacred delusion, to live as good human beings.
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.
If I had a nickel for every creationist who says "I believe in microevolution, but…", I'd be rich enough to run for president. This is a false dichotomy between micro- and macroevolution, as used by creationists (it has technical meanings beyond what people like Brownback argue, though); it's really simply an admission that a large part of modern science has been driven home enough to them that they can't argue against it anymore (progress!), so they've invented this other category of things they don't understand, called it "macroevolution", and used that as an excuse to avoid accepting any more conclusions. It's rather funny, actually. It's like they've wrapped up their ignorance with a pretty bow and named it "macroevolution", unaware that there is a large and growing body of scientific evidence for macroevolutionary processes.
As for his blanket rejection of one explanation for the world, that's part of the conflict between faith and science. He is unaware of the evidence, but because he dislikes the idea, he categorically rejects it. That is anti-science. Show me evidence for a god that adequately accounts for the evidence that contradicts his existence, and I'll accept it; I'm not going to pre-announce that I am going to ignore anything science might tell me.
And I'm sorry, but the evidence from science is a testament to the overwhelming power of natural processes. No external, supernatural intervention is needed, and no evidence for such an event has been discovered. There is no place revealed for a guiding intelligence in the story so far. If someone wants to claim that there is, they have to do more than say that they fervently wish it were so.
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.
He is correct that there is no one single theory of evolution. It's a complex process with many contributory mechanisms and the even greater complicating factor of historical contingency. There is also ongoing debate about the relative importance of various mechanisms, which is the sign of a healthy science. But there is no significant debate about the observed facts of evolution — that the earth is very old, there has been continuous and ongoing change in populations of organisms, that we see a succession of different ecologies over the history of the earth, and that all life on earth is united by common descent — and it is precisely this solid core of well-documented, thoroughly tested, and confirmed beyond reasonable doubt conclusions that the anti-evolutionists contest.
The man is so uninformed that he can't even recognize a legitimate debate. There are no "classical Darwinists" anymore — pangenesis is refuted, we know of many places where Darwin is wrong, and we've moved on. Punctuated equilibrium as a description of the pattern of change in populations over geological time is also almost completely beyond argument at this time (some of Gould's interpretations of the meaning of that pattern are still fun to argue about, though). And please, Mr Brownback, which is it: is evolution an "exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world" or is it "merely the chance product of random mutations"?
Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man's origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.
Name one thing of value that "people of faith" bring to the table. One thing. Make sure it's something that people of reason do not bring.
I oppose the inclusion of faith in the interpretation of scientific evidence, and Brownback might be surprised … even many of those "people of faith" he thinks he is courting do not want his sectarian, idiosyncratic faith coloring our understanding of the material nature of how the world works. Scientists — a term that includes anthropologists and psychologists — are well able to work towards an honest "understanding of the human person" without some priestly biased sort leaning over and urging them to twist the results to better fit the flawed and ancient rationalizations of primitive Middle Eastern holy books.
I am also interested in how science can help us better understand humanity. I don't think distorting the evidence with faith and wishful thinking helps, though, since I'm more interested in the honest truth.
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. 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.
Whoa. The first clause claims he's open to looking for the evidence, but then the rest is a positive assertion of a false claim that is contradicted by the evidence. The evidence from molecular biology says that much of what we are is the product of many completely random changes and a smaller number of changes that were subject to slow selection over millions of years that gradually shaped us away from a more generalized ape-like form. That is the truth, as revealed in the rocks and the genes; it is not compatible with his truth, which is derived from his ignorance of science and his quirky interpretations of an old book that summarizes a flimsy mythological account in a scant few pages. What Brownback is doing here under that reassuring mask of piety is demanding that science must be in accord with his interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, no dissent allowed.
His are the words of an ignorant theocrat. I will let the evidence take science where it must go, unconstrained by religious preconceptions. I'm not going to worry that it might discomfit Christians; as far as I'm concerned, those narrow fundamentalist/evangelical views have already been demolished.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
PZ, I read this earlier in the N Y Times, & thought you'd pick up on it.
When someone is controlled by belief in a superstition, they just can't help saying something stupid when the facts contradict the dogma. It's worrying to think that such people hold high public office.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | May 31, 2007 12:33 PM
He almost makes sense at the beginning and then immediately goes off the rails. There's a lot of 'science and faith should go together for everyone,' not 'I personally believe that these things aren't incompatible.'
Posted by: Jenbug | May 31, 2007 12:33 PM
Yes, those of us who live in Kansas pretty much expect this sort of incoherence from our senior senator. As much as we'd like the rest of the nation to take him off our hands, I am not rooting for him to become president!
Sam needs to learn more about science, and less about religion. I don't know where I read it recently, but the bumper-sticker summation of this sort of mentality is "God is the answer when you don't ask enough questions."
Posted by: Albatrossity | May 31, 2007 12:35 PM
He's right, you know. Faith and reason truly are complementary, as one deals with what's imaginary and the other deals with what's real.
Posted by: Cameron | May 31, 2007 12:35 PM
Wow. And this guy wants to be President.
"My faith trumps science no matter what it finds. My imagined reality trumps the real world."
Look where that's gotten us with G. Dub.
This guy should be embarassed.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 31, 2007 12:36 PM
Sam Brownback is a convert to Roman Catholicism, which may be a problem for some members of the evangelical religious right. He was formerly a member of a nondenominational evangelical Christian group and before that a Methodist. Since they all believe in the "same God", though, I suppose a friendly afternoon over coffee would suffice to iron out any tiny disagreements.
Posted by: Zeno | May 31, 2007 12:38 PM
Steve_C, I really doubt he would be embarrassed, as, that would be an admission that his fake reality can't trump the real world.
Posted by: Stanton | May 31, 2007 12:39 PM
Typical "I want science to reinforce my pre-existing beliefs" gibberish. Quite silly and not what science actually is. Then again, no one ever mistook Brownback for a scientist.
Posted by: Dutch vigilante | May 31, 2007 12:39 PM
PZ, ya nailed it. Thanks again.
Posted by: John Danley | May 31, 2007 12:41 PM
Posted by: khan | May 31, 2007 12:42 PM
What worries me is that otherwise reasonable people will conclude that candidates like Giuliani are OK by comparison to Brownback.
Posted by: Homostoicus | May 31, 2007 12:46 PM
I wrote a letter to the Times this morning pointing out that Brownback, like most religionists, make the common mistake of logic by claiming in the same sentence to know what God's intentions were when He created the universe, and at the same time admitting that Gods intentions are unknowable. Typical religionist nonsense.
PZ, I hope you and other knowledgeable biologist will be invited to submit a rebuttal to this frightening moron.
Posted by: Duff | May 31, 2007 12:47 PM
Instead of the reporter asking the candidates who did not believe in evolution, I wonder what would have happened if he had been more specific? Something like "do you accept that humans and the other apes shared a common ancestor millions of years ago, and that all life forms on Earth shared a common ancestor billions of years ago?"
Seems that Brownback here is making a case for theistic evolution, which is mostly "believing in evolution" to my mind. Maybe he wanted to show his more ignorant yokel supporters on the TV that he's agin' this "evilution" stuff, then try to cover his tracks with the more intelligent readers of the Times that he's really reasonable after all.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | May 31, 2007 12:48 PM
I like this part:
"The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos".
What is the "unique and intended place" of all those embryos which are spontaneously aborted by the human body without the mother even being aware of their existence? If Brownback is a Catholic, he must believe that all those embryos are people from the point of conception onwards. He believes that every human being was "willed into being and made for a purpose". What is the purpose of a spontaneously aborted embryo?
I really wish I could corner him and ask him in person. He's obviously given this matter a lot of thought, since he is convinced that it is a "fundamental truth", so no doubt he will have a well-reasoned and persuasive answer to this question. Or not.
I suppose we should be a little bit happy that Brownback even felt the need to explain himself, or that he (as it seems from the beginning of the article) chose to distance himself from the YEC's.
Posted by: Mark Borok | May 31, 2007 12:54 PM
Brownback reads like a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. That is, in order to reconcile his worldview (which sounds like a literal interpretation of the Bible) with current knowledge of the world, he abandons knowledge for the sake of his own worldview. But this does not surprise me; he is a politician and not a scientist.
Perhaps I'm too involved in science outreach, awareness, and education that cases like the above pains me to read. Is it a failure of the educational system that we turn out individuals who lack comprehension? Is it failure of society for allowing free thought evovling into poltical tyranny? Or, is it failure of God to make the world require a higher learning curve then the average individual possesses?
Posted by: Shawn W. | May 31, 2007 12:54 PM
Speaking of which, I've got a post about woo misuse of the term 'intuition' that's attracted a particularly dense off-topic Cretinist troll who started out with copy/paste and has graduated to teh gay! jokes. Been a while since I've done a real troll roast.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 31, 2007 12:57 PM
I don't believe in evolution. Do you?
Posted by: Jim Lemire | May 31, 2007 12:59 PM
This is the best thing you said, PZ:
"Name one thing of value that "people of faith" bring to the table. One thing. Make sure it's something that people of reason do not bring."
Theists always play the game of arrogating to themselves universal human experiences: love, compassion, awe at the universe. They really seem to think that atheists can't feel any of them, or similar things. A former colleague of mine, irritated at always being accused of being 'halfway to theism already' and the like, called this 'Christian Imperialism'. It's an apt tag: they try to colonise territory that should be open to all of us, and claim it as their exclusive ground.
Posted by: iain | May 31, 2007 1:01 PM
PZ: Great response. I wish you would have written about Brownback's quote, "That being the case, many believers -- myself included -- reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality." My frustration with Brownback saying this is that it gives the impression that "no God" is a tenent of the theory of evolution. God is not addressed by evolution because existence God is not a scientific question.
Posted by: spencer | May 31, 2007 1:10 PM
You think Brownback is bad? Take a look at his supporters!... especially enjoy learning that we live not only on a YOUNG Earth, but a FLAT Earth with our sun in orbit around US and that SCIENCE is a vast conspiracy.
Posted by: dorid | May 31, 2007 1:10 PM
Jim:
Your mother actually made a turducken? I've seen recipes, but I have never heard of anyone actually making it. How is it?
And, by the way, you said exactly what I was going to say about "believing" in scientific propositions.
Posted by: CJColucci | May 31, 2007 1:12 PM
"And please, Mr Brownback, which is it: is evolution an "exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world" or is it "merely the chance product of random mutations?"
Hey, no fair, PZ! "Deterministic" is a five-syllable word, already! You can't expect him to know what it means!
Posted by: Coragyps | May 31, 2007 1:23 PM
dorid,
I just went to that website. That is an utter CLASSIC! What a treasure-trove of lunacy.
I am 100% convinced it's a parody, though. Please tell me it's a parody... Anyone?
Posted by: MikeM | May 31, 2007 1:25 PM
To learn more about science Sam needs to talk with knowledgeable scientists. It's clear that he doesn't feel the need to do so.
Posted by: Les Lane | May 31, 2007 1:27 PM
Check out these winners from Blogs 4 Brownback.
Learn all about how Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine
And of course, read all about how apce travel is a complete hoax. My oh my.
Posted by: GreenishBlu | May 31, 2007 1:45 PM
Yes, Brownback is an idiot of the highest (lowest?) caliber. I've managed to put my two cents in before rushing off to work this morning, here; naturally ;), you somehow manage to address the same points in more depth (where do you get the time???). I was particularly scared by his last sentence, which implies theocratic censorship of science. Ouch!
Posted by: Jorg | May 31, 2007 1:49 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, ho hum, a creo channeling a creo who is channeling a creo. These guys all read off the same set of 3 X 5 cards. After a while it gets boring and you can start to fill in their next 3 paragraphs without even waking up.
So, what's it like living in Kansas? We out here in the
realoutside world always hear about Kansas when some wingnut does something wingnutty. Tim McVeigh, the defender of US values lived there among others. Should we organize a relief mission or send care packages or something? LOLPosted by: raven | May 31, 2007 1:53 PM
I think that the real problem with the Brownback op-ed is that it is deceptive. It is clear that Brownback is an early earth creationist, but by hiding behind the false "microevolution" distinction that most readers of the New York Times will not catch.
In other words, to the creationist readers of the op-ed, he is using code language to let them know he is one of them. Most of the rest of the readers may well actually think that Brownback actually believes in on recognized school of evolutionary thought. I am particularly concerned that Christians (like myself) who reject both creationism and ID, but who are not familiar with the code language of ID and creationism, will be deceived.
Posted by: A Guy in the Pew | May 31, 2007 1:54 PM
I'd say, "Just once" -- but I want it to happen all the time, this way: Some politician talks about how important faith in God is, how more important to our society and politics is that people act as God desires, especially with regard to respect for the facts and the truth; and, therefore, despite pressure from a powerful minority in Christianity, the politician must come down in favor of instructing kids in evolution theory, if for no other reason, just to add to the hope for a cure for cancer (or Alzheimer's, or whatever).
When Brownback's faith in God requires him to subscribe to falsehood, he's lost his struggle for the good.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | May 31, 2007 1:58 PM
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.
Wow. Welcome back to the Dark Ages. It BOGGLES MY FUCKING MIND that an American presidential candidate in the 21st century could write something like this. It's like the Enlightenment never happened. Hell, it's like everything after the 13th century never happened.
Posted by: Max Udargo | May 31, 2007 2:08 PM
PZ, thank you for writing this post. When I read that op-ed this morning I was so upset with the Times for printing that drivel that I immediately cancelled my subscription (after the creation museum piece and several other things that have pissed me off recently, this was the last thing I could handle). And I even considered reviving a months-dead blog to bitch about this terrible piece.
I had the exact same reaction as A Guy in a Pew. Nearly all my friends will read that column and not realize that while it mostly sounds inane, it's all code for something more insidious and anti-science. Not to mention how incredibly bigoted it is against people not of faith. I found it infuriating.
Posted by: nicole | May 31, 2007 2:11 PM
Sorry- I still don't get it. Is PZ Myers for, or against creationism?
(Now that's irony!)
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 31, 2007 2:12 PM
I was trying to get my post out before you PZ. ONE OF THESE DAYS I WILL BE VICTORIOUS!!!!!!
Posted by: Ilya | May 31, 2007 2:15 PM
Isn't that supposed to be Sam Low-Browback?
Posted by: forsen | May 31, 2007 2:21 PM
Welcome to Church: check your reason and logic at the door, please. Thank you, thank you.
ugh
Posted by: chornbe | May 31, 2007 2:26 PM
One of my commenters pointed out the genius of the end of his [non]-apologia. He's supporting the science up to the point at which it contradicts faith. Then it can no longer be tolerated. Brilliant. We need more open and honest politicians like that in this country.
Posted by: Sir Oolius | May 31, 2007 2:27 PM
If I were an elector in the U.S, I'd feel compelled to ask:
"Senator Silverb-- er, Brownback, why is it against the 'truths' of Christian faith specifically that we must measure science? Why not against the 'truths' of Muslim, Hindu or Budhist faith?"
And I can imagine his answer would be as typical as everything else he says:
"This a Christian nation."
An that's how you know that universal truths change across international borders.
We're on the verge of having a fundamentalist theocracy with nuclear weapons, and it ain't Iran.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | May 31, 2007 2:30 PM
What Sam is doing here is politically clever. The voters -especialy his voters need to be reassured that a candidate truly holds the same strongly held ideological/religious biases as the voter. That is far more important to the average voter, than the ability to distinguish reality from myth. If he can write a piece that convinces voters who hold incompatible biases that he is one of them- he is that much further ahead.
Posted by: bigTom | May 31, 2007 2:42 PM
"Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less."
Am I the only one who got a sudden mental image of people burning at the stake, from that statement?
And he's Catholic now? Well, he's definitely picked the right denomination. They know all about that purifying stuff.
Posted by: foldedpath | May 31, 2007 2:45 PM
Sam Brownback says:
"At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question."
That's completely true. Reason can't answer some questions such as why are we here, how did life get started, what's the purpose to existence, and so on. There are gaps in our knowledge that aren't likely to be filled anytime soon.
Some of us come to terms with this lack of knowledge and these unanswered questions. We face the reality of not knowing the answer to every question. Unfortunately, others like Mr. Brownback cling to the childish need for certainty and are willing to lie to themselves and others by invoking faith in order to attain a false certainty.
What is so scary about "I DON'T KNOW"? Grow up and quit lying to yourself and others about the Truths you've discovered Mr. Brownback. A lot of us see right through your lies and wishful thinking answers to life's hardest questions. Quit hiding under the umbrella of faith and face the world with all it's uncertainty as it really is. You may not win a Presidency with that stance, but you'd win the respect of people who respect the truth.
Posted by: Marcus | May 31, 2007 2:45 PM
Speaking of republican presidential candidates and falsehoods, what about Mitt Romney and some of the historical claims of the Mormon religion? As I understand it, the Book of Mormon describes a detailed pre-Columbian history of North America in which there was a large migration of people from the Middle East. These immigrants had domesticated horses, used chariots for travel, and developed a civilization that wrote in Hebrew and Egyptian. Needless to say, none of this is supported by archaeology.
Has Romney ever been asked if he believes this account of history?
Posted by: Daniel | May 31, 2007 2:46 PM
hmmm, catholics have long accepted evolution. A common cliche is that we learned our lesson about opposing science after Galileo. While Brownback is an idiot panderer, I'm not sure the author impresses me much which this argument:
[quote]Faith says that the way to get answers is by revelation, accepting authority, and dogma. Science says that the way to get answers is by examining the evidence critically, testing hypotheses with experiment in the natural world, and by constantly reevaluating and revising our ideas to make them more accurate. It isn't just that the two arrive at different, conflicting answers--for instance, that the earth is 6000 years old vs. 4.5 billion years old--but that their methods conflict. Scientists will not accept a random idea because someone contemplated and decided a deep "Truth" appealed to him: a kernel of observation and evidence is required.
It is disingenuous for Brownback to claim that science and religion do not contradict each other, given that religion contradicts itself.[/quote]
So, if, as catholics recognize, Faith has its place (and, of course, it is not biology), PZ is setting up a straw man by arguing that Faith cannot accept the scientific method. Frankly, even in those areas where Faith holds court, it is a straw man to argue that answers come from revelation, accepting authority, and dogma. "Faith without reason..." you know the quote. I'm not a theologian or philosopher, but here's an on point philosophical discussion that seems to argue that even in the context of religion (at least catholicism) reason is as good as revelation, accepting authority, and dogma. Heh. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
I'm not sure what PZ gets by lumping Faith with fundamentalism, which is what I think he is describing. Now I didn't bother reading this post beyond the first few paragraphs, so feel free to attack me for that. But, my general point still stands: lumpling Faith, or all religions, with fundamentalism, is unfair and a poor way to attack creationists.
If your goal is to smear religion and Faith in general, I apologize for interrupting.
Posted by: alcatholic | May 31, 2007 2:53 PM
Before anyone goes on to blast alcatholic, I'd just like to say that I think it's great that religious moderates come here for debate. Welcome, btw.
Posted by: forsen | May 31, 2007 3:05 PM
Hey, at least he's consistent.
(This time.)
Posted by: David Marjanović | May 31, 2007 3:07 PM
I think you've made a mistake in your interpretation. I'm not attacking fundamentalism — I mentioned one specific example of a fundamentalist belief, the age of the earth, but no, I'm going right for the root of the problem: faith. This is a general criticism of any attempt to squeeze faith or religion into science — and that someone might hold a liberal version of religion makes no difference. It contradicts science.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 31, 2007 3:10 PM
I completely agree with your point, but you picked a few bad examples:
Looks like this question is wrong.
Research on the origin of life is science.
As I just said: this looks like a wrong question. You're assuming there is a purpose to start with. Why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi?
Posted by: David Marjanović | May 31, 2007 3:14 PM
alcatholic #42,
Faith is the justification you use for your beliefs WITHOUT evidence. Reason is what you use to justify your beliefs for which you have evidence.
It's nice to know that you are comfortably blending the two to arrive at your beliefs, but I have no respect for any portion of your beliefs, no matter how small, that utilize faith as your reason for holding them.
How about instead of filling in the gaps of what you don't know with "faith", you fill it in with the honest answer of "I don't know because there isn't enough evidence.". You'd be suprised how fulfilling a belief system you will still have without all the non-sense beliefs based on faith.
Posted by: Marcus | May 31, 2007 3:20 PM
Watch the contradictions unfold!
And then his own theory...
He doesn't seem to care much for empiricism at all!
Posted by: Stephen | May 31, 2007 3:23 PM
"...reason is as good as revelation, accepting authority, and dogma"
I think that says it all. Whether within religion or without, many people here think that reason is superior by far to the other three. Revelation, authority, and dogma can be completely wrong, and without reason, there is no way to determine that. What is the difference between Hindu revelation, Muslim revelation, Roman Catholic revelation, or Evangelical revelation? How do we tell which ones (if any) are correct, without reason? And that includes using reason on ones own beliefs. If we make reason no more important than the (supposed) revelation, then we have nothing but ignorance.
Posted by: Badger3k | May 31, 2007 3:24 PM
As always, they are pathologically disingenuous: "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..."
He's got the nerve to cry about the soundbite culture? I guess it was OK by Mr. Brownback to support Luntz and his "soundbiting" of the culture, with intention, with purpose, with...design.
The rest is just recycled "talking points" in opposition to things he refuses to try to observe in life, let alone understand in the lab.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 31, 2007 3:26 PM
Faith doesn't equate to authoritarianism. If one defines faith as blind acceptance of a text or authority figure, it's better to reject it.
There's another tradition in faith, one of taking a chance, grasping for something you aren't yet sure of. The coolest believers of my acquaintance are like that, not adherents of authority. They might take a chance giving a job to a person with a checkered past. They would leave a safe job to start a clinic for the poor. They may feel that in spite of the odds they can make their marriage vows work (and stay "faith"-ful). Some indeed risk their safety, even their lives, to be a beacon for peace in our violent world. Chances taken can lead to great personal hardship and suffering, which they bear with integrity and grace. That's faith.
I think we're all wrong to think faith is about the beliefs in peoples' heads - it's about their actions. All right, go ahead and say, "that isn't faith it's compassion." Not really. Plenty of people have compassion and do nothing. Faith is the something extra when they actually step out, despite the odds. How about, "you don't have to believe in a non-existent spirit-being to do that." Cool. That' a great observation. I think in the end maybe you do have to believe in something, such as a common humanity, the liberating power of knowledge, or some such principle. For many faithful, a compassionate god is that principle.
Faith is a much-abused concept, but I refuse to surrender it to the likes of Brownback, who makes it all about his cookbook approach to an ancient text. Just the same, I refuse to surrender it to bloggers who make it all about... somebody else's approach to an ancient text. Faith, understood, has hardly anything to do with a creed or a set of propositions. Shallow faith might, and a lot of people hide behind the term "person of faith" to justify themselves. I refuse to surrender faith, the word or the reality, to them. Maybe you'll say I'm not following the "common" meaning of faith (but where's your rigorous poll?) This is not my idiosyncratic idea. It's a high standard of faith, one you might not have encountered but shared by many. You see, we don't have to define a thing by the most common, debased understanding of it in the popular mind. (If we did, evolution would be toast.)
Posted by: Anna Z | May 31, 2007 3:43 PM
Blogs 4 Brownback is a parody. At least I'm pretty sure it is. The fact that there's a shred of doubt in my mind is what really scares the hell out of me.
Posted by: Gus | May 31, 2007 3:56 PM
Damn, does that mean I need to change my latest post?
I don't want some creationist coming back and saying "That's not what PZ said!"
Posted by: Berlzebub | May 31, 2007 4:17 PM
I don't care what he says. He raised his hand. I believe he was the first to raise his hand and he raised it unhesitatingly.
Trying to fudge an explanation later - probably through an aide - doesn't change anything. He's an idiot.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 31, 2007 4:19 PM
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's [excuse me?] essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.
So let's bomb the living hell out of Iraq.
That's why all these evilutionists opposed the war. They have no regard for human life.
Righto. What a friggin' moron.
Posted by: Kristine | May 31, 2007 5:02 PM
After reading this, I looked up the dictionary definition of "faith," and started to write a comment here that got very long. So I turned it into a blog post of my own:
You gotta have faith?
Posted by: markbt73 | May 31, 2007 5:17 PM
Name one thing of value that "people of faith" bring to the table. One thing. Make sure it's something that people of reason do not bring.
Ideas that have demonstrated useful contributions to societies over a span of centuries to millenia. Note that "useful" ideas need not be "true"; they may just be a rule of thumb accurate some important fraction of the time. "Good" and "evil", while sloppy, make for a damn handy approximation, as indicated by its lasting popularity.
Not to say that the religious have the answers to where we've come from, but their ideas may form a useful framework about where we should and should not go from here. That is, some of their ideas may continue to adapt and evolve. =)
Posted by: abb3w | May 31, 2007 5:19 PM
Anna. That's like the argument that god is poetry and art or god is the universe.
Faith is to believe something without evidence. It's not whatever you think it should be.
When people boast about faith... it's not the faith you're talking about.
You seem to think that "faith" is some great human attribute that should be embraced.
I think that's wrong.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 31, 2007 5:29 PM
PZ wrote:
"Show me evidence for a god that adequately accounts for the evidence that contradicts his existence, and I'll accept it; I'm not going to pre-announce that I am going to ignore anything science might tell me."
PZ, it seems to me that the evidence neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. I'm persuaded that it shows a process of evolution in life and clearly it disproves some doctrines of some faiths, but what "evidence that contradicts his existence" are you talking about?
Posted by: Dave E. | May 31, 2007 5:37 PM
Uh-oh. Brownback is using the awful power of framing against us!
So, is this tactic a smart one for him? Does the "Science and religion are natural buddies" frame lead people to reject mainstream science--since if it contradicts their religious beliefs, it must not be proper science? Nisbet, Mooney et al. were hoping for that frame to have precisely the opposite effect....
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 31, 2007 5:41 PM
I think the evidence that god is entirely unnecessary for anything to exist in our universe is evidence to the contrary of a creator.
All scientific evidence suggest our universe looks exactly like one would look that was lacking a creator.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 31, 2007 5:45 PM
No external, supernatural intervention is needed, and no evidence for such an event has been discovered.
Why even accept the premise that their god is "supernatural"? Why even give them that much? Heck even Dave E. agrees that there is no evidence that their god is supernatural. Zilcho nada.
Posted by: 386sx | May 31, 2007 5:53 PM
Since this comment section has gone from a well deserved bashing of Brownback's irrational young earth creationism to a spirited debate between atheists and pro-evolution theists (like me!), I'll take the plunge and weigh in once again.
In response to Steve_C (#61) and others, I would submit that the fact that the universe had a beginning, that it obeys orderly laws that can be expressed precisely with mathematics, and the existence of a remarkable series of "coincidences" that allows the laws of nature to support life in the iniverse can also lend strong support for the God hypothesis. Does this prove that God exists? Of course not, but it certainly leaves room for someone to accept where science will take us, while also having a rational belief in God.
Posted by: A Guy in the Pew | May 31, 2007 5:55 PM
"Sam I am" writes funny stuff. I especially liked the "atheistic theology" reference, as if those two words do not have the same root word...making their coupling an oxymoron of sorts.
For any who might find Sam's ilk frustrating, please consider my approach. I have set up a mental popcorn stand so that I can enjoy refreshments while I watch the religious zelots of the world anguish with degenerative cognitive dissonance (it's a little like thought-cancer.) They just get stupider and stupider, and it's funny.
I no longer react negatively to morons like Sam-I-Am...rather I just enjoy the show-- as they struggle to maintain a vanishing position of influence. It can become a source of entertainment rather than frustration...if framed as such.
Posted by: Greg | May 31, 2007 6:25 PM
Faith is irrational. Belief in a god just isn't rational.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 31, 2007 6:32 PM
Heh... I always like to take a plunge of this sort. Let's face it. A wacky fundamentalist minority got enough money to make a mockery of a "museum" and the scientific community was so unnerved by the whole phenomenon that ended up bashing religion altogether.
Tsk... this is indeed shameful. Let's face it people. We can talk till we're all blue in the face, but there's a single irrifutable truth about this debate:
"Science cannot disprove the existence of God and theology cannot prove the existence of God to the scientists' satisfaction." (period).
This is the very definition of a stalemate.
I'll also agree up to a point with the distinction between Science and Religion. My Religious Education professor taught me this more than 15 years ago and it sounds so simple, that it's really a shame many people cannot really comprehend it. She claimed that Science and Religion indeed complement each other because Religion teaches us WHO created the world and WHY and Science teaches us HOW. It seems so brilliantly simple, doesn't it?
I don't expect a scientist to tell me what's the meaning of life or if I have a soul and similarly I wouldn't ever allow a priest to tell me when and how the stars were born (well, I might've let Georges Lemaitre do that, but he's a special case).
Instead, I see the world's remaining superpower licking its lips while looking up the definition of the word "theocracy" in the dictionary. And this scares me to the depths of my very soul (whether I have one or not).
P.S. And BTW, stop tossing all Religion into a single sack labeled Fundamentalism. It's really quite annoying. Call it by its true name; Protestant and Catholic Fundamentalism.
Posted by: EvanT | May 31, 2007 6:34 PM
Religion teaches us WHO created the world and WHY and Science teaches us HOW. It seems so brilliantly simple, doesn't it?
Simple, yes. Now, can you explain WHO created the universe in the Buddhist religion?
Posted by: ken | May 31, 2007 6:58 PM
Hold on there. Let's be a little more careful. Why allow religion (yet again) to monopolize a perfectly serviceable concept such as "faith"?
I have "faith" that the vast majority of scientists are not dishonest in reporting the results of experiments or observations I personally don't have the means to check.
Why should I TRUST them? Well, its a matter of recognizing that what they report is consistent, right down to what I CAN personally check. There's a real honesty that is cultivated amongst those in the scientific community: they check each other all the time and will reject anything that isn't consistent with what everybody else sees.
Why should I not TRUST any religious tradition? Well, that's a matter of recognizing that what they report is woefully inconsistent, right down to what I can check for myself. There's a chronic dishonesty that is cultivated in religious cultures: they DON'T check each other and will reject anything that is not consistent with what they have erected as a fixed world-view...which is horribly inconsistent with itself, let alone with natural reality.
They ask no questions. They do not reexamine. THEY DO NOT EVEN KNOW HOW TO THINK WELL.
This whole faith-thing appears to be yet another language-based difficulty. Language is constantly utilized as a front for inauthentic thinking. "Faith" as "trust" is one thing. "Faith" as mindless credulity is quite another.
Guess which meaning applies to science or religion?
PZ is exactly right when he says, "the evidence from science is a testament to the overwhelming power of natural processes. No external, supernatural intervention is needed, and no evidence for such an event has been discovered. There is no place revealed for a guiding intelligence in the story so far. If someone wants to claim that there is, they have to do more than say that they fervently wish it were so."
So is Richard Harris (in #1), when he says, "When someone is controlled by belief in a superstition, they just can't help saying something stupid when the facts contradict the dogma. It's worrying to think that such people hold high public office."
The most significant and urgent aspect of the difference is that science breeds "faith" in skeptical question-asking honesty via critical and rational thinking while religion breeds a form of faith which promotes mass stupidity.
There is no accounting for the wide acceptance of completely irrational and inconsistent thinking EXCEPT through the systematic cultivation of it within powerful cultures of superstition, otherwise known as "religion".
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | May 31, 2007 6:58 PM
And here we have the problem with Gould's concept of non-overlapping magesteria. If science and religion are entirely separate ways of determining truth, then they can never come into conflict. So when conflict appears to occur (a circumstance which is astonishingly common if these truly are non-overlapping magesteria), then logically the religious claim isn't legitimate religion or the scientific claim isn't legitimate science.
Gould took the approach that religious claims which contradict well-established science "obviously" must not be legitimate religion and so could be summarily dismissed. As seen in the quotes above, Brownback is also arguing for non-overlapping magesteria, but he has taken the opposing view that science which contradicts his religious beliefs "obviously" must not be legitimate science and so can be dismissed just as easily as Gould would dismiss a six day creation.
We still have a conflict between science and religion so Gould's supposedly conciliatory approach hasn't resolved anything. In fact it has made the situation immune to resolution because it reduces the claims that science should ever have primacy to mere dogma. Declaring science and religion to be co-magesteria makes empiricism and faith separate but equal methods for establishing truth, so you can't use empiricism or faith to resolve the issue. The debate is now reduced to two sides shouting at each other that their position is "obviously" true because it is, because it is, because it is.
Even fervently religious people rely on empiricism every day of their lives. A person may claim that the material world is merely an illusion which they seek to escape, but they will still avoid eating food that looks moldy. There simply is no way for the religious to entirely eliminate the need to reason based on evidence, because it is far more fundamentally a part of who we are than any theology could ever be. It is this common ground that is our "wedge," and we should be using it to expand the influence of scientific thinking rather than ceding the epistemological high ground to those who gain power by claiming that reality is subject to desire. Declaring that wishful thinking is on par with scientific theories which have proven their predictive power innumerable times is the same as declaring the end of the enlightenment.
Pos