Nuance from Brownback

Anyone catch this Op-Ed in the NY Times from Sam Brownback about evolution? Whether I disagree with it or not, I found it well-written and... strangely sweet.

"IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands..."

"The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. 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. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God."

"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."

Brownback goes on to explain his view more in depth: that episodes of evolution - "microevolution - may well have occurred, but that while he respects the progress of science he is unshaken in his belief of a "divine causality."

Brownback's views are of interest because he converted from evangelical protestant to Catholic in 2002. They reflect the current nuance in the Catholic church, which does not take a hard stand against evolution, and defers to scientists on things like the age of the earth and the fossil record (Cardinal Paul Poupard talks about the "permanent lesson" learned from bucking Galileo back in the 1600's). Very different from the six 24-hour day creationism proposed by those who see all Scripture as inerrant.

It would have been a blast to hear a full-blown theological argument up on the podium, but alas, we'll have to read about it in the papers.

UPDATE: The Onion just weighed in on where to draw the line between divine causality and microevolution - the Triassic period. I don't think this is going to help the Vatican but check it out for a chortle.