Fri Jun 1, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Sam Brownback Is an Idiot
Sam Brownback, Republican Presidential candidate extraordinaire, tries to explain why he wants to have his cake and eat it, too... Er, I mean, does and doesn't believe in evolution.
I mean, it all started out so well:
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.
I could live with that, but, it got all weird at the end:
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.
That ain't how the scientific method works, Sam. Faith is one thing, but guesses at the answers ahead of time and rejecting the ones science gives you (and calling them names) ain't being reasonable. It's kinda the opposite of being a reasonable, scientific, rational person.
See also: I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period — yet another prescient article from the oracle of Onion.
Permalink • Posted in: 2008 election, evolution, politics • Comments (4)
Loading preview...
Comments:
Parmeter Jun 5, 2007
So in today's Star there is a follow up to this in the Op-Ed section from the idiot. Considering how his (and now mine, I suppose) state keeps flipping back and forth on the topic I guess it was something that was going to happen.
In the editorial he attempts to clarify this position and from how I read it, doesn't do so good of a job. It seems to be attempting to find a middle ground where none exists. That aside, he uses a key phrase several times that piqued my curiosity: That mankind was not a "historical accident".
That got me to thinking, in my own cyncial sort of way, as to what, exactly is wrong with the notion that us humans and all of humanity arose out of chaos. I mean, is there something frightening about this idea that he feels he needs his faith to insulate him from? Is there something horrifing in the idea that we are purely an accident that I have completely missed?
Joshua Jun 5, 2007
The editorial you speak of appears to be here; if that's it, it's identical to the one from the NYT linked above.
Outside of the somewhat obvious "but then, everything I believe in is a lie?" dissonance issues, in my experience, the fear of "chaos" amounts to a fear of anarchy. Keep in mind that the fundamentalist believes that, left to our own "natures", we revert to "evil": that you would kill your own mother if God's Law weren't there to tell you it was "wrong". It's a completely authority-driven structure — good (or charity or fairness or whatever) isn't just a rational response, it's "learned" from a book.
If Man doesn't "owe" God for creating him, it threatens God's strangle-hold on authority, and before you know it, we're all killing puppies.
Parmeter Jun 5, 2007
Ah, shows me to go and make sure I read links. Should have known the Star to be a few days behind the rest of the world.
The fundamentalist mindset simply confounds me.
Joshua Oct 19, 2007
Well, one way or another, we can all relax: Brownback's out. At least, he's expected to announce his departure from the campaign later on today (Friday).