Comments

Sen. Brownback is clearly the smartest of the three that raised their hands (though unfortunately he did not appear that way when he raised his hand). He's also more intelligent than a lot of the folks who have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "evolution." The question was inappropriate in that it did not give any of them time to explain their position--God forbid anyone should have a nuanced view. I'm glad he used the Times to clarify his view.

Let's also hope that evangelicals take it to heart. Too many among us are quick to criticize evolution without having the faintest sense of what they are critiquing. Senator Brownback was careful not to reject the results of legitimate scientific inquiry. Such nuanced and well crafted statements, however, have rarely been proffered by evolution's more vocal evangelical critics.

Bravo to Sam Brownback for standing firm in his convictions and for having the ability to articulate an often overlooked distinction in the mainstream media. The differences between microevolution (change within species) and macroevolution (change between species) are critical. Most folks think of "evolution" and automatically intend to use it to mean "macroevolution." However, microevolution is consistent with a biblical worldview and the creation account from Genesis. Sen. Brownback appears to the most genuinely spiritually focused candidate and is motivated in doing his best to honor God and his faith.

Brownback's last paragraph translates: "My mind is already made up. Please don't confuse me with the facts."

The mere fact that this is a point of debate for PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES is sad. Some ideas that popped into my head:

1. Does denial of "literal six day evolution" entail a lack of faith or spirituality? As Rob Bell put it in his book Velvet Elvis, our faith is not like a brick wall. If you take out a doctrine like the literal 6 day creation, the whole wall does not collapse. However, I do disagree there are salvatory doctrines that cannot be taken out of this wall. I guess you could say they form the foundation.
2. Whatever happened to the division of church and state? All of the right-winged Christians who treat every day like its fourth of July deny some of the basic concepts of the founding of our nation. A person of any faith can become president. The government is not to control the church and the church is not to control the government. This was the reason America was founded! The church should be as willing and excited about that division as the state is. God's people did not aligned themselves with government and power to spread the good news in the Bible. They operated apart from the Roman Empire and even against it, when need be.

Don't miss reading the comments on Brownback's article, at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/opinion/l01evolution.html. I thought the comments by Alan Leshner and James Mechalakos were exceptionally bright.

Senator Brownback surely didn't really believe that Chris Matthews question pertained solely to scientific materialism as he implies. He's a gifted politician, given his characterizations of the issues, but what about evolution's claims of common descent? Nary a word.

Yes, creationist's are a substantial voting bloc, but one shouldn't compromise the science just to placate them.

Don't blame the Republican candidates for this topic arising in the debate: Chris Matthews asked it.

It's unfair to force someone to answer yes or no to whether he "believes" in evolution without clarifying what you mean. But Matthews swims in the world of ideas about as deeply as a microorganism that lives in a film on the top of the ocean.

Brownback has clearly thought much more deeply about this topic than Chris Matthews has--or probably ever will.

This is just Pathetic, Borwnback falls into the same pit of ignorance that many people do. Assuming that belife in the mere fatcs of Eveolution imply that tehre is no God, and evrything is just by chance. Science makes no moral or philisophical judgements, it emrely reporst the facts, and evolution is fact, I still belive in God, look it was a debate bwteen theroies 100 years ago, it's been proven now, Eveolution won, get over it. We still can affirm God as cretor and guiding hand in all of it, just stop using the Bible as an excuse to watch the Flinstones as a Documentary PLEASE!!!!!!!!

Bravo to Brownback for standing firm in his convictions, groundless as they are, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence in support of universal common descent with modification, ie., evolution. Google the TalkOrigins Hall of Human Ancestors. One must be wilfully ignorant of the evidence involved to deny evolution today, and Christians like Brownback would do well to educate themselves on the science of evolutionary biology if they don't want to appear uneducated in their proclamations.

Square water melons and genetically engineered food are samples that once in a while, life is created. Not a proof, but a plausibility.

tvzwoiup gvpoyhdnm ifak galnxpsro wycjls axbdc rzofnhyp

exirwpzg lqhrnywi nczytmksd dxcke aebcqk drhvgxcs htlr zoav rajxgh