Literature

In the minds of large swathes of the intellectual community, there is a line between facts and values, between the objective findings of science and the subjective beliefs of individuals. This line goes back a long way in history and many regard it as the only way to bring harmony to science and faith questions.
In a recent issue of the New York Times, Senator Brownback explained his reservations about the way the theory of evolution is used in contemporary discourse. In particular, he wrote: "It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science."
This comment, and several others in his article, has stirred strong reactions from the Editor of the journal Nature. "But there are lines that should not be crossed, and in a recent defence of his beliefs and disbeliefs in the matter of evolution, US Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) crosses at least one." The particular point at issue concerns the human mind, and the Editorial insists that the conceptual framework for understanding humanity is evolutionary theory. Thinking based upon human minds being "the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact." Furthermore, the Editorial goes on, "our feelings, intuitions, the ways in which we love and loathe, are the product of experience, evolution and culture alone." The Editorial concludes: "Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation." The abstract of the Editorial reads: "With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."
The real problem is a belief that there is a line between facts and values. Senator Brownback pointed to this when he wrote about "philosophical presuppositions behind theories", but the implications of this have eluded the writer of the Editorial. We do not have empirical evidence that the human mind is the product of evolution: the "unassailable fact" is actually a deduction imposed by the a priori adoption of evolutionary premises (that everything about the human mind can be understood in terms of natural causes: "the product of experience, evolution and culture alone"). In denying the reservations of Senator Brownback, the Editorial has to cross the line in the other direction! Apparently, "science" requires Christians to put aside the idea that man was created in the image of God, and evolutionary psychology requires Christians to abandon the idea that feelings, intuitions and emotions are related to the relationship people have with God. The assertion that "science" has these theological implications should surely make us realise that the fact/value demarcation is inappropriate and that it is time to revisit these issues. The "science" of the Editorial is naturalistic and it is inherently impoverished. We need ID inputs to this debate to reclaim science from the tyranny of naturalism.

Evolution and the brain (Editorial)
Nature 447, 753 (14 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/447753a

Abstract: With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.

See also:
Brownback, S. What I Think About Evolution, New York Times, May 31, 2007.

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. [snip]