American Paradox

Senator Brownback has written a defense of his decision to raise his hand at the recent Republican candidates debate when the question was asked, Who among you does not believe in the theory of evolution?

Good news, on the one hand. We always want the most fringe beliefs to stand out so they can be defeated by reasoned democracy. But let's break down Brownback's N.Y. Times column:

"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 he's learned from the George Will school of political journalism, Technique #1: Always begin a column with a platitude no one will disagree with. Then proceed with the crazy.

"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."

That's a fair point, but let's be honest about what we're talking about: People who reject Evolution almost invariably do because of religious convictions about creation. Why dodge the scary truth that you disagree with science because it scares you, Brownback?

"I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two [faith and reason]."

This is mind-boggingly stupid. I might say that I believe that Loki is guiding President Bush in his war-making efforts. But the fact is, reason tells me there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that Loki is guiding anyone's actions, or that Loki exists. An act of "faith" would be believing in Loki, let alone praying to him, despite the evidence or in the face of a lack of evidence (Note: it is not clear that any Norsemen ever prayed to Loki either, but this is a moot point). Isn't ignoring empirical evidence or a lack thereof per se unreasonable?

"More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love."

Actually, science has made a lot of strides towards understanding human love (as mediated by a series of chemicals that mostly have to do with the overriding urge for us to get laid, repeatedly) and human suffering (you could say the entire field of psychiatry is devoted to understanding human suffering scientifically).

"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. "

Most "believers" in evolution are perfectly content to think it is possible for a deist God to have created the singularity that began the universe, defined scientific laws, and then pressed the green "GO" button, while he stepped back and watched the supernovae. Brownback clearly has never spoken to a scientist who believes in evolution so that he would understand this subtlety. Wait a second -- I thought the whole point of this column was to delve into subtleties?!?

"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."

Seriously? "[K]nown fully only to him"? First of all, that's unproveable and not the subject of science. Macroevolution at least CAN be proved, though we don't have the instruments or the record for it at the present time, but discovering truths knowable only to some divine being who gives no evidence of his presence in this universe is very different. Where is this "hand of God" and why does it demand to be capitalized?

"I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos."

At least he tacitly admits that he rejects scientific theories because he has a predisposition to rejecting anything that conflicts with his faith. Too bad it's the wrong answer.

"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."

Reading this column is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's gratingly unpleasant, just like nails on a chalkboard -- the slower you read and the more you digest, the more you want to vomit. And it builds to this crescendo, where Brownback states with self-certainty that man was "not an accident." God, who allegedly endowed him with his penetrating insight and ability to reason, is laughing maniacally right now. Of course that is because the one true God is Loki, and anyone who disagrees clearly does not understand when science fails the human mind.

But seriously, who among us wants to believe that humans are purposeless beings, "accidents"? There is probably no psychological or material benefit to believing this unless... the evidence you have points to its being true. This is to say that scientists who believe that humanity has no purpose and was not created, probably did not come to that conclusion lightly or without trepidation. Whereas, believing in a Christian God-created universe makes us suspicious of bias: death is not the end of life, but a continuation thereof or perfection thereof; all moral quandaries were solved long ago and written into a perfect book by agents of God; and all questions to which there are not answers are left unanswered because God does not want us to have the answers. There you have it: no death, no moral problems, no reason to ask questions. Might we understand if some scientists, using their ability to reason, were skeptical that people who really, really want to believe these three consequences of Christian mythology might harbor biased conclusions about how the rest of the world works, especially in evaluating scientific theories that challenge their accepted memes?

Labels: creationism, election, evolution