Brownback explains his disbelief

During the first Republican presidential debate the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. Three of the nine men on stage raised their hands. Apparently at least one of the three is now feeling a need to explain in what way he does not “believe” in evolution. In an op ed in today’s New York Times Sam Brownback explains:

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.

This seems to be saying that when he hears the word “evolution” his first thought is of an “exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence.” If that is what he means then he is in very good company. Many, if not most, scientists would also reject such a vision of the world But why does the word “evolution” carry such baggage for him? Who has created this straw man idea?

When polls show that a majority of American do not believe in evolution is it only an “exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence” that they are rejecting? Is so, then what we have here is more of a “failure to communicate” than a disagreement between people of science and people of faith.