jump to navigation

What Sam Brownback Thinks About Evolution Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Posted by Henry in anti-evolution, creationism, evolution, faith, fundamentalism, God, rationality, religion, Sam Brownback, science, United States.

This is a bit of delayed post due to my travelling for work, but anyway…

This article, written by Republican Senator Sam Brownback, outlines his views on evolution, and has been debunked and ridiculed – as it should be – by fellow bloggers such as Pharyngula, the Friendly Atheist and readers of Richard Dawkins’ site. Here is my own two cents of worth.

It is often the case that people who do oppose evolution are the ones who do not understand it. In the two paragraphs show below, Brownback has shown just how much he does not know:

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.

First, I am tired of reading that evolution is all about chance and random mutations (and therefore, we are a mere product of historical accident). Natural selection is an algorithm that is not based on randomness and chance, and by definition an algorithm is the opposite of randomness. Second, there are areas of uncertainty within the theory of evolution, but that is the nature of science. Science is about making progress in our understanding, and it is perfectly natural to have problems in theories. Quantum theory, for example, has many intriguing, unsolved mysteries, as well as competing theories – but that does not make it invalid.

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.

But Senator Brownback, it is a fact that evolution happens, supported by the many many evidence we gathered in various and sometimes unrelated disciplines of science – genetics, geology, paleontology, embryology, medicine (micro-organisms evolve to develop resistance to drugs), just to name a very few. You cannot argue against facts. Turn your think head around, don’t twist with science to fit your blind faith beliefs.

You cannot “believe” in the so-called micro-evolution yet rejecting the same, proven mechanism at a “species” level. This sort of view is a completely hypocritical. Either you reject evolution or accept it – in the same manner of Richard Dawkins’ famous quote “If you’re not on the side of reason, you’re on the side of superstition”. The so-called macro-evolution is proven – speciation has been observed (I will do a summary of this in a future date and provide a link here to it).

It seems that Senator Brownback has a more sinister motive here – he tries to appeal to both the scientifically-minded and the religiously-minded by stating that he believes in science (by accepting micro-evolution) yet being a faithful Christian (by accepting a guiding intelligence – God). Needless to say that this is completely dispicable.

Senator Brownback says he cannot accept evolution if it implies a materialistic and deterministic view without a guiding intelligence. This is an argument that is all too familiar to us. Evolution is a proven fact. Get over it, Senator Brownback, if you cannot stomach the way science has enlightened our understanding of the natural world because of your child-like blind beliefs, beliefs that we had to have before the coming of science, before the age of reason.


1. Jim - Friday, June 8, 2007

Senator Brownback does not have a sinister motive. He has fallen for the idea that somehow life created itself about 4 billion years ago. Of course any logical person should know that life is too complex to have created itself. However, millions of otherwise very intelligent persons have cast away logic and accepted the ‘fact’ that evolution did accidentally make a living thing way back then. Brownback believes this in a modified form, he thinks that God used evolution to create the first living thing.

But, why on earth would God use evolution to bring life into the universe, with its continuous cycle of birth and death, eons after eons, and then claim He is a God of love. How loving is it to have this awful cycle of death that evolutionists claim has been going on for a little over 4 billion years.

The argument between Creationists and evolutionists can be settled right here and now..

If evolutionists really want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell.

After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.

If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

PS: If the evolutionists refuse to create the ‘simple’ cell, then they automatically loose all credibility. And as is aalready known by those who have kept their logic, evolution is a fancy myth masquerading as science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: