Subject: [AthofSV] attempting to combine science, faith and reason

From: "Mark W. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 07:11:09 -0700

godless,

Here's an op-ed that shows the fuzzy-minded logic that can result from
attempting to combine science, faith and reason.
 - Mark

=====

from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html

Op-Ed Contributor
What I Think About Evolution
By SAM BROWNBACK
Published: May 31, 2007
Washington

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.
So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when,
during 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, I think it would be helpful to discuss the
issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Yet I believe, as do many
biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed
life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to
him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the
philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in
excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their
realm of empirical science.

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.

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. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of
circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

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.

Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.

Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.