In the first Republican presidential debate, candidates were asked if they did not believe in evolution. Sam Brownback, along with several others, raised his hand. Now he wants to clarify that. In today's New York Timeshe 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 sceintists "venture far beyond their realm of empirical science."
He adds, "Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."
One hopes the NYT editors would take this message to heart in their coverage of creationism or Intelligent Design.