Sen. Brownback published an essay in the NYT defending himself for raising his hand as someone who doesn't "believe" in evolution. It seems a genuine attempt to reach people who are more moderate, but in my mind it falls flat on its face. Note the follow passage: 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.
The Senator is missing the point here. This text really is a rejection not just of some aspects of evolution but of the basic process of rational thinking. Essentially what the Senator is saying is that when all of the facts and evidence conflict with his preconclusion or prejudice, he is going to stick with his preconclusion or prejudice. It is deeply problematic, in my opinion, that we have leaders who employ this approach and promote this approach. As a general method of dealing with difficult questions this approach can only reach the right conclusions by accident. I am personally more interested in the idea that our leadership is moving forward by rationally evaluating the information available to them and making the right decisions then I am in the possibility that man's creation was not the result of a similar thought process. I do not have faith in God that you people won't screw this country up! In response to this essay Edge.org published a rant from biologist Jerry Coyne that many of you will find entertaining. We don't reject the supernatural merely because we have an overweening philosophical commitment to materialism; we reject it because entertaining the supernatural has never helped us understand the natural world. Alchemy, faith healing, astrology, creationism—none of these perspectives has advanced our understanding of nature by one iota. So Brownback's proposal to bring faith to the table of science is misguided: "As science continues to explore the details of man's origin, faith can do its part as well." What part? Where are faith's testable predictions or falsifiable hypotheses about human origins?
Unfortunately, I think it also misses the mark, unless the mark is preaching to the choir. You aren't going to convince religious people to approach political problems rationally by telling them that religion is stupid. Frankly, you have to show them where it is useful. You have to accept them and their faith and allow them to hold onto their faith without rejecting reason. While Brownback fails in his attempt at outreach, he does frame his arguement in a strategically intelligent way: He claims to accept science in general and the parts of it that don't conflict with his interests. You've got to meet him halfway before you can really talk about this and expect him to listen. Furthermore, and this is a minor knitpick, but if you're trying to communicate with propagandized conservatives about science, do not mention global warming. This rant mentions that most people in the United States don't understand that the earth revolves around the sun on an annual basis (reference?). Well, there are other basic facts that most people don't understand. Global Warming is worse because they don't just fail to grasp it, Conservatives have been told over and over and over again that it isn't real (not withstanding any question about human contribution). If you mention it, many of them will immediately tune you out. They think people who beleive the world is getting warmer are involved in a vast socialist conspiracy. Really, they do. Brownback: What I Think About Evolution - New York Times | 
