Presidential candidate Sam Brownback gave his take on evolution in today’s New York Times. Here’s my favorite part:
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.
Right, Sam. Anything that contradicts your literal belief in the Judeo-Christian creation story is “atheistic theology”. Where do I begin? Perhaps with the, um, truth, that the book of Genesis contains two different versions of the creation narrative. Which one is it that you believe so fervently?
We could acknowledge the cognitive dissonance between the words “atheistic” and “theology”. We could discuss the reality that different cultures have different creation stories. Or we could talk about the dangers inherent in treating the Bible as a history and/or science text — or even the potential for sin in setting up a book as an idol to be worshiped.
Oh, and Sam? Demanding that science overtly support the existence of God undermines the very essence of faith, which, after all, does not depend on tangible proof.