The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason.No, Senator, the heart of this issue is whether or not you believe biologists have proved their case that all modern species (including man) were born by the mechanism of "descent with modification through time".
If you don't believe they have made that case, over the last 148 years, then raise your hand. If you do believe that case has been made, then don't raise your hand.
Don't go trying to change it into some question its not. It's not a question of faith and reason. It's a question of whether or not you believe the case has been made. Obviously, you don't believe it's been made, since you raised your hand. (Or you would rather not admit to your constituents that you believe it's been made.)
Only after the fact did you come up with the long non sequitur about faith and reason.
“..Don’t go trying to change it into some question its not. It’s not a question of faith and reason. It’s a question of whether or not you believe the case has been made. Obviously, you don’t believe it’s been made, since you raised your hand. (Or you would rather not admit to your constituents that you believe it’s been made.)..” ~ samtheman
Like the pope said - (no I’m not RCC) - there is more than “one” theory of evolution floating around. (For details, see my comments and links beneath Brownback’s excerpted comments below):
Sam Brownback: What I Think About Evolution:
Excerpts:
“.. 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.
... 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. ....
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. ...
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. ..”
His comments sound _pretty close_ to the recommendation I made a few days ago (5/25/07) here:
Theories of evolution: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=22#22
Age of the earth: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=24#24