Brownback vs. Science; Science vs. Brownback

A couple of weeks ago Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who's running for President, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times attempting to explain why, in a debate with his Rep opponents, he raised his hand when asked if he didn't believe in evolution.

It was an interesting essay, a sort of defense of faith that was at the same time reasonable and also kind of anti-science. So in the last edition of Edge, the online salon run by literary agent John Brockman, the secular geniuses have their democratic response. Evolutionary biologist John Coyne leads the charge, and let's just say he's not ready to find common ground with Brownback.

Here's Brownback's money quotes:

People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that
God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species,
I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true.
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.

And here's the big finale:

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.

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.

I was delighted to see Brownback in the Times. I agree with very little of his politics or philosophy, but I appreciate someone coming out to defend their views in a public forum. I've interviewed Brownback—years ago, to be fair—and he seemed to me to be a man of principle and considered belief (even if, as I said, I thought he was wrong almost completely).

So here's the best of Coyne's response:

Whether he knows it or not, Brownback's forthright declarations, denying any possibility that empirical matters of fact might differ from those assumed by his creed, amount to nothing less than a rejection of the whole institution of science. Who is "we", and where did "our"
conviction and certainty come from? Would Brownback believe these
"spiritual truths" if he hadn't been taught them as a child, or brought up in the United States instead of China?

According to Brownback, we should reject scientific findings if they conflict with our faith, but accept them if they're compatible. But the scientific evidence says that humans are big-brained, highly conscious apes that began evolving on the African savannah four million years ago. Are we supposed to reject this as "atheistic theology" (an oxymoron if there ever was one)? The religious conviction that "man"
is unique in ways that really matter is compelling in many ways—surely our language, art, music, and science itself are unique products of life on this planet—but holding our uniqueness to be a dogma immune to scientific analysis is an arrogant, and ultimately foolhardy, declaration of authority.

Can't fault Coyne there. One of the problems with finding detente between faith and reason is that science—a by-product of reason, we hope—so often contradicts the letter of biblical law. And somewhere along the way some faiths seem to ask of their adherents a certain bull-headed literalism that doesn't allow for new information that contradicts the old.

But you know, that said, detente is what we should be looking for—not Coyne's (and Edge's generally) absolutism. The we're-right/they're-wrong approach (while I tend to agree with its substance) isn't going to make anyone friends with anyone. It kind of reminds me of the Flying Spaghetti Monster meme. The idea, if you haven't heard of it, is that if you're going to worship (to steal David Rees' coinage) invisible superheroes who live in space, then just as likely as Jesus the Redeemer of man is a giant flying monster made of spaghetti. Funny? Well, sure. Alienating to every person of faith? Pretty much.

Plus, just to elevate my dudgeon further, Coyne fires off this gem:

[I]t's fair to ask why the New York Times went
along with publishing misleading statements about evolution. Doesn't
somebody at the Times keep an eye out for gross errors of
fact on the editorial pages? Brownback is surely entitled to say
that science can't tell us how we should behave, but is he also entitled
to misrepresent the central principle of biology? An opinion is an
opinion, but it's not a very good one when based on "facts" that
just aren't so.

Am I reading this wrong, or is Coyne suggesting that the Times shouldn't have published an op-ed by a United States Senator because the science in it is wrong? When the op-ed was about religion? Because maybe I'm overreacting, but this kind of absolutism is exactly what scares the normal people about us scientifically-minded types. They're afraid we'll use science to cut off conversation, to rid the world of wonder. You and I know that's not true (right? right?) but that's sure what it starts to sound like when genuinely brilliant human beings like Coyne start to use as an arguing tactic "this debate is so stupid I can't believe someone published its next iteration." Bad evolutionary biologist! Bad!

What we're looking for here, folks, is a way for people steeped in the scientific method to talk to people who are not. Step one is to bolster science education in this country to the extent that everyone knows the basics, and that includes not teaching creationism in a science classroom. But the other part? Civility, empathy, and understanding. The only way to win the fight between faith and science is for both sides to agree that there isn't one.