Brownback's Evolution

At the May 3rd Republican primary debate, one reporter posed a point-blank question to the nine presidential candidates, "Is there anyone on the stage who does not believe in evolution?" After a second of awkwardness, three candidates raised their hands - Representative Tom Tancredo from Colorado, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback.

On Tuesday, Brownback published a letter in the NY Times, rightly complaining that the question was unfair and wanting to clarify what he really thinks about evolution. His position, I think, is extremely common and is perhaps the majority belief amongst evangelical Christians. He sums it up nicely in the final paragraph of his letter:

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.

Brownback is not really concerned with science at all, but rather with the perceived threat that evolution may pose to his beliefs. He makes clear what these are in the preceding paragraph:

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.

Its hard to blame anyone for feeling this way. If one believes something strongly, one should be wary of contradictory claims. Of course, where Brownback makes illogical leaps here is in supposing that evolution "seeks" to undermine his beliefs or that an evolutionary theory of human origins is incompatible with the Christian principles he holds dear. Yet like so many evangelicals, he views specific claims from the theory of evolution (the claim of common origins in particular) as incompatible with these beliefs.

It is clear that Brownback would like evolution to be compatible with his faith, and he is willing to let some aspects of the theory in, such as what he calls 'microevolution,' or evolution within a species. As he states:

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species.

Again, this view is extremely common amongst evangelical Christians, and most don't know enough about evolution to know that you can't allow evolution within a species without allowing it to create new species.

Now of course there is nothing about the theory of evolution that undermines belief in the divine creation or god-given purpose that Christianity teaches. But the fact that so many Christians, and at least one US Senator, take the position described here raises an interesting question about human psychology. What is it about the idea of a common biological origin for life on earth that is so commonly perceived to be in conflict with the idea of a purposeful Creator? What is it about the human psychological condition that seems to prevent logical thinking when it comes to these issues, that prevents Senator Brownback from realizing that he actually refusing to let the facts speak for themselves? That question, perhaps more than any other, keeps me up nights.