Sam Brownback is still a big idiot

Republican Presidential candidate Sam Brownback is working on damage control from his impromptu show of ignorance at the Republican debate when he raised his hand to the question, "Who doesn't believe in evolution?"

To that end, he has an op-ed piece in today's New York Times trying to clarify his position.

"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."

Actually, belief in a physical fact is pretty much a yes/no question. It requires no subtlety. It's not complicated or nuanced. For example:

Do you believe the moon is made of green cheese? No.
Do you believe that you can beam yourself around the world instantly? No.
Do you believe Sam Brownback has a chance to become President in 2008? No.

"The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason."

No, the premise is that if you don't believe in established scientific fact like gravity, germ theory, and evolution, then you are a nutjob.

Okay, I've taken his next paragraph and substituted a more accurate phrase for the word "faith" to demonstrate how stupid this all is.

Believing in something with absolutely no evidence seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Believing in something with absolutely no evidence supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, Believing in something with absolutely no evidence — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Believing in something with absolutely no evidence and science should go together, not be driven apart.

Now the following is just stupid. In fact, pretty much any sentence that uses the phrase "atheistic theology" is stupid (excluding this one).

"Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."

All Sam Brownback has succeeded in doing in this editorial is dragging out all the old Creationist canards and straw-men. The fact that he feels a need to try to put a scientific gloss on this moldy old nonsense just demonstrates how unfit he is for the job.

Then again, the bar has been lowered pretty far over the past six years.