Not Reason, no matter what he claims to be saying

Senator Brownback was one of the three Repubican presidential candidates who admitted to not believing in evolution. Apparently, he's disturbed by the reaction, because he's written an op-ed for the NYT called "What I think about evolution".

What he thinks is that it's a dirty lie intended to undermine Christianity.

Sure, he starts out saying

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.

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

But he sums up by saying

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. 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.

Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.

Which means, no more and no less, that anything which challenges his preconceived notion of the One True Faith must be "firmly rejected".

Which means he has no clue what science is, nor reason either.

And also means that he believes in "the created order".

And that's good enough for him.

You can go other places and read about how his acceptance of "microevolution" is code for being a creationist, or how genuine evolutionary biologists don't split evolution in micro- and macro, or how there is no "feud" between "punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism" (which latter ceased to exist more than a century ago), or how he labels evolution simultaneously "chance" and "deterministic", or how his claims about man's "unique place in the world" have nothing to do with evolution - seriously, the blogosphere is filled with critiques of his comprehension of science in general or his ability to argue coherently.

But really, all you need to do is read that last bit again: 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...

If it agrees with what my religion says, it's welcome. If it doesn't, it's not.

That says it all.