Sam Brownback vs Planet of the Apes
I never thought I would live to see the day that a President of the United States would question evolution, so I suppose I should not be surprised to read an opinion piece (Op-Ed 5-31-07 http://www.brownback.com/s/NewsRoom/PressReleases/WhatIThinkAboutEvolutionNYTimesOpEd/tabid/363/Default.aspx) from a sitting US Senator with presidential aspirations on that same side of the fence.
In a poor but wordy attempt to stake out a position that does not seem as anti-intellectual
and anti-scientific as it in fact is, Sen. Sam Brownback outlines all the reasons why it embarrasses me that he even sits in the Congress. In a long, painful blah-blah-blah of meandering arguments that could just as easily be re-fashioned to support Erich von Däniken’s theories of ancient astronauts, Brownback unintentionally outlines why he is hopelessly unqualified to be a teacher, philosopher, scientist or priest – never mind a legislator.
He informs us that “people of faith should be rational” and then launches an irrational diatribe about the undeniable sanctity of the fundamental truths he holds. He concedes certain aspects of evolutionary theory could be useful, but only if these pieces interlock with his definitions of a Supreme Being and man’s place in the universe. As to those that don’t fit, he tells us these “should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.” Science and religion must
agree, he insists – and if they don’t, he will make them!
The founding fathers, creatures of the age of reason, would certainly have pilloried Brownback for his medievalism, but I wouldn’t even give him that much credit. To me, his worldview echoes that of the orangutan Dr. Zaius, “Keeper of the Faith” in the “Planet of the Apes” movie, who crushes a paper airplane because it challenges his unshakable belief in the implausibility of flight.
In a poor but wordy attempt to stake out a position that does not seem as anti-intellectual
and anti-scientific as it in fact is, Sen. Sam Brownback outlines all the reasons why it embarrasses me that he even sits in the Congress. In a long, painful blah-blah-blah of meandering arguments that could just as easily be re-fashioned to support Erich von Däniken’s theories of ancient astronauts, Brownback unintentionally outlines why he is hopelessly unqualified to be a teacher, philosopher, scientist or priest – never mind a legislator.He informs us that “people of faith should be rational” and then launches an irrational diatribe about the undeniable sanctity of the fundamental truths he holds. He concedes certain aspects of evolutionary theory could be useful, but only if these pieces interlock with his definitions of a Supreme Being and man’s place in the universe. As to those that don’t fit, he tells us these “should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.” Science and religion must
agree, he insists – and if they don’t, he will make them!The founding fathers, creatures of the age of reason, would certainly have pilloried Brownback for his medievalism, but I wouldn’t even give him that much credit. To me, his worldview echoes that of the orangutan Dr. Zaius, “Keeper of the Faith” in the “Planet of the Apes” movie, who crushes a paper airplane because it challenges his unshakable belief in the implausibility of flight.
posted by Garp83 at 6:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home