Faith and Science are Compatible

In the first Republican presidential debate, held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, candidates were asked if they did not believe in evolution. Sam Brownback, along with several others, raised his hand. Now he has clarified his position in an article in the New York Times. He writes:

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.

Brownback says that he believes "that the process of creation ... is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him." It is not anti-science to "question the philosophical presuppositions" that scientists offer to support their theories that exclude "the possibility of design or purpose." These scientists "venture far beyond their realm of empirical science” and, he adds, “should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."

Faith and science are compatible, he says. It is okay to questions the philosophical assumptions that remove design and purpose from the universe. One hopes all media would take this message to heart in their future coverage of creationism or Intelligent Design.