In the first Republican Presidential debate, the candidates were asked if there was anyone who did NOT believe in the theory of evolution.
Sam Brownback was one of 3 who said that he did not.
Now he has an op-ed piece that is seeking to explain/obscure what he meant. http://www.nytimes.c...
And as best I can determine, what he means is "I believe in intelligent design." Or, as I prefer to think of it, "Creationism lite." And in saying this, he commits many of the errors of analysis that are characteristic of "intelligent design" proponents.
One fundamental problem with his logic can be found in the following paragraph:
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.
"Intelligent design" advocates are fond of saying that "there is no single theory of evolution," and they like to hold up the dispute between those who suggest a theory of punctuated equilibrium as proof that "evolution" isn't something that is agreed upon by scientists.
"Punctuated equilibrium" is the piece of evolution theory that argues that the state of nature may go along for millenia with very few changes in the species, and then -- all of a sudden -- there is a big flurry of changes in many different species at more or less the same time. For example, if the dinosaurs and plants were getting along just fine for thousands, or even millions of years, there would be no evolutionary advantage to change. Equilibrium will have been attained. But then a comet hits the earth and causes dust to be scattered throughout the atmosphere, and the planet suddenly gets colder for a hundred years or so. Warm weather species die off, and the remaining species now have a biological advantage that they can exploit. Suddenly there mutations that help species deal with the cold are rewarded, and new variants emerge. And those of us looking at the geological record millions of years later will see a profusion of new species emerging all at once -- the equilibrium has been punctuated by a period of intense change, after which another equilibrium is attained.
This is a variant of evolutionary theory, but it does not argue that evolutionary theory is wrong. The best known proponent of punctuated equilibrium was Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, a prominent supporter of evolution. The dispute comes down to debating whether to travel to Charlottesville from Washington by driving slowly without stopping or whether to drive fast, but to stop for lunch. Either way, you still get to Charlottesville.
So when Brownback and others say, "there isn't even one unified theory of evolution," he's just flat wrong. There is disagreement on some details, but not on evolution itself.
Brownback argues:
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.
Brownback distorts the scientific conclusion. The scientific conclusion on "intelligent design" is NOT "Evolutionary science disproves any possibility of intelligent design." The scientific conclusion is rather the opposite -- "Evolutionary science proves that intelligent design is not necessary to explain the world as it exists, and there is no evidence to suggest that there has been intelligent design." To a scientist, there is a very clear difference between saying, "X does not exist," and saying, "There is no evidence to show that X exists."
Of course, one problem with "intelligent design" is that it is not capable of being tested. A scientific thought becomes accepted if it is offered as an explanation of things not yet observed, and then evidence is found to back up that thought. But to "test" intelligent design requires that someone say what exactly the thought is. If Brownback's thought is that "Six million years ago God took a subgroup of primates, left them in an isolated ecosystem so that they could develop on their own into a new species that we would recognize as humans," that is at least a thought that can be investigated. We could look for evidence that had happened. And if we found evidence -- either in the geological record or in DNA analysis -- then we would be able to say, "we have tested that thought, and we can confirm parts of it." And then we might find other evidence, and we could confirm other parts of that. That's how Darwinian evolution came to be accepted.
But no one has yet stated the "intelligent design" thought with sufficient specificity to allow it to be tested. Scientists, therefore, have no choice but to say, "Whatever 'intelligent design' might be, it isn't science."
Finally, Brownback suggests that an understanding of the scientific realities behind the theory of evolution is inconsistent with a belief in a God. His ultimate statement is this:
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.
Many scientists who understand evolution to be a scientifically valid way of explaining how our earth has come to be also profess a belief in a higher power. Most evolution scientists who profess a belief in God would, I suspect, say that their view of God is not as a master puppeteer, willing and able to alter genetic code on a whim. If that is the irreducible core of
Brownback's belief in God -- that God is willing and able to alter genetic code on a whim, and that if you don't believe that then you are an atheist -- then
Brownback will never win the support, or even the understanding of, scientists.