In an interview with GQ magazine, Senator Marco Rubio was asked, “How old do you think the Earth is?” To which Senator Rubio responded:
I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
To this I would answer that I’m not a doctor, but I know that smoking causes lung cancer. In the same way, one doesn’t have to be a scientist to know roughly how old the earth is (the estimates are roughly 4.5 billion years old). The age of the earth, by the way, is a separate question from whether God is its Creator.
If Senator Rubio is worried about reconciling his faith with science (or worried about offending those who believe the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old), he might consider reading a book by the biologist Darrel Falk, Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology. Professor Falk writes about reconciling his Christian belief with biological evolution. More to the point, Falk presents the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth. He also argues that the “young earth” belief inevitably leads
to the position that the sciences of astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology and biology are all fundamentally wrong. These sciences point toward a very old earth and universe and lead to the gradual appearance of new life forms on earth over billions of years. If they were wrong, it would not mean the demise of a marginal theory at the sidelines of each discipline. So central are the notions of an old earth and the gradual appearance of life to these fields of scientific endeavor that the scientists in research universities hold them with absolute certainty. Within these disciplines the earth is viewed without doubt to be billions of years old, and new species have been making appearances throughout most of that time span. So foundational is this position to all of the scientific disciplines that, were it wrong, the disciplines themselves would collapse.
For Senator Rubio to duck on this matter, then, is, to me at least, a bit disquieting. There are many issues that don’t have to do with the economy that are still worth knowing about when it comes to major political leaders. This is one of them, since it offers an insight into the broader views one holds about the nature and validity of science.
One of the attributes of conservatism, at least as I understand it, is openness to evidence, including scientific evidence, and embracing reality. It can be discrediting to a political party—as well as religious institutions—to stand against (or deny) overwhelming empirical evidence on any subject. (It’s worth recalling that up until 500 years ago the Christian church, to its great detriment, argued that if the Bible were taken literally, the sun would have to revolve around the earth. The claim that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old is about as believable as are those made in attacking Galileo and Copernicus.)
I like Senator Rubio and believe he has a very bright future. But it seems to me he not only needs to re-think his answer to this question, but come to terms with its larger implications. He and his party will suffer, and should suffer, if they are seen as agnostic on, or standing against, science.
Oh dear, the rape question is coming up.
According to the bible, the Earth was created in 6 days, but how did they measure days back then before there was even a sun? These "God-days" could stretch millions upon millions of years. So he needs to realize that you can believe in God and also believe the world is billions of years old at the same time. Obviously he hasn't thought about it much.
sure, bend the bible's interpretations to fit reality. tell that to all the christians who want to ban same-sex marriage.
Frankly, this post makes me wonder yet again whether I've made a wrong turn and ended up on some left-wing site. Rubio's answer simply asserted the right of an open discussion on all theories which is the "tolerant" approach. Now I'm fast discovering that we're supposed to all pass a "Darwin test" to demonstrate one's fitness for office. The thing that makes me laugh at the notion that what Rubio says makes him part of an "anti-science" movement is that the last time I checked, it isn't the GOP that has a member of Congress who believes Guam could tip over. n nInstead of insisting on fidelity to Darwin in a presidential candidate, it might be a better idea to insist that our presidential candidates prove their fidelity to Civics 101 because the Democratic Party is the one that has with each succeeding election demonstrated they know nothing on that point, yet of course we're not supposed to care about that.
Commentary is increasingly moving to the left. Most of its writers seem anxious to appear hip and with it. There is no apparent interest among them to oppose secularism. Abortion and gay marriage are also to be accepted as inevitable in American society. Flying the white flag of surrender is deemed advisable.
David, I disagree. Many of us, certainly myself included, have very deep commitments to traditional morality and behavior. What we are trying to do is to politically navigate among an electorate that increasingly finds our beliefs "odd," if not contemptible. I think that's what so much of the dialogue has been about since the election. More specifically, someone who is going to be the focus of attention and scrutiny, like Rubio, better have some good lines rehearsed. Being a conservative, the press will not allow him any space in these cultural type discussions. Unfortunate, but that's reality.
I am a rather secular man. It has been years since I attended a religious service. Still, I realize that abortion and gay marriage will destroy a nation. These fights cannot be avoided. Too much is at stake.
If two candidates were roughly equal in all regards but one was staunchly against abortion under any circumstances and weak in his economic thinking, while the other was permissive with regard to abortion and impressive when it came to economic matters, which one would you chose? Same question, but swap out economics and put in its place foreign affairs, which one would get your vote? Same question, but substitute Israel as the variable, which of them then? And so on. In other words, how much weight would you give a candidate's position on abortion, what issues would it be subordinate to for purposes of deciding your vote?
Considering that the Democrats drove every last pro-life person out of their party, I never have to worry about that.
Casey of Pennsylvania, among others. n nBut it's a hypothetical, and as someone who feels as strongly as you profess to on these subjects ("will destroy the nation…(t)hese fights cannot be avoided") why dodge the question, why not man up (forgive the sexism) and say which issues your vote would turn on, e.g., Ryanesque on abortion but weak on important economic matters vs. permissive on abortion but strong on economic matters? (And if as you claim there really are no possible "pro-life" D candidates, then that only means that the hypothetical is all the more likely to prove not hypothetical at all. And do note, the question was not framed as a R vs D one, it was purely about theparticular issues specified.)
That question rarely comes up. Most people who are solidly anti-abortion are also pro-Israel and pro-free markets. You are essentially advancing an imaginary straw man.
You really are determined to avoid the question, aren't you? (BTW, don't give any thought to attending law school, because in law school you would be expected to answer hypotheticals and defend your answers to them.) n nPat Buchanan is as anti-abortion as they come and decidedly anti-Israel, so it is not necessarily the case that an anti-abortion candidate will be pro-Israel, let alone that they will be anti-abortion, pro-Israel and intellectually competent, as we saw in the case of Todd Atkin. Also, one can be "pro-free markets," as are all true liberarians by definition, and foolish or worse when it comes to economic issues, things being more nuanced than pro- vs anti-free-markets. But if everything is that black and white in your mind, then there is no point to going any further with this.
" because in law school you would be expected to answer hypotheticals and defend your answers to them." L'havdil, you run into that in learning gemara as well.
Yes, hypotheticals employed in learning gemara too, which is in many ways like learning the secular law. Both require critical thinking rather than rote memorization. But many are incapable of critical thinking and/or uncomfortable when asked to engage in it through the use of hypotheticals or other means.
Yeah, like it destroyed Canada. It's a shame we have that big hole north of us now. And Scandinavia… The Netherlands… festering heaps of… n nwwwaaaaait a second…
Are the Dutch replacing themselves? Is it safe for an unescorted and bare headed woman to walk in Amsterdam? How about a Jew who is visibly identifiable as such? Don't even start me on Scandinavia, or the Norwegian and Swedish economy, or Norway's public health system.
Did you ever consider that sex police and black markets might have similar results? n nEver consider a non-government solution? n nIn that sense the right is just like the left. Neither can conceive of a non-government solution to its important problems. n nBTW the biggest threat to marriage is divorce.
The only reason why mainstream beliefs are being considered "odd" has to do with the corrosive effects of the Hollywood cesspool and the bigots of the elite media. Which is why it is high time for conservatives to take the gloves off and start exposing the wacky "odd' beliefs at the core of these bigots who are asking the questions. But alas, when opportunities present themselves, we cower and get scared of those same bigots in the media and Hollywood which is why Barack Obama can get elected President despite having a background that wouldn't have gotten him a security clearance decades ago with a mentor in certified communist Frank Marshall Davis, friend to domestic terrorist William Ayers etc. And now the "oddness' has reached a point where Al Sharpton (I refuse to use the "reverend" title with him), who was convicted of defamation in a court of law for the Tawana Brawley hoax, gets access to the White House to influence policy. And yet instead we get handwringing over the "oddnes" of Marco Rubio's beliefs?
Nice, you hit a lot of bull's eyes in one paragraph.
The economy and foreign policy is what really matters and we lose elections because liberals say we think the Earth is flat, gays are the devil, and we hate women. Commentary recognizes that we need to take these three things off of the table ("science," homosexuality, abortion). If liberals can't beat us over the head with those three pet issues than we win because the bottom line is our economic and foreign policy is backed by history, theirs is backed by failure. n nPersonally I believe that God created the Universe and it could have been created mature or grown and evolved over billions of years and I don't know or care which. No matter how it happened it is beyond human understanding. I'm willing to sacrifice gay marriage and the lives of some trailer trash babies for free markets and a militarily strong America. n nThe big question is, will sacrificing those things really do anything. If we let Buffy abort her first, second, and third drunken mistakes will she then take another look at her other liberal beliefs?
Of course it demonstrates one's fitness for office; if someone refuses to accept such a basic proven scientific fact as evolution, they are demonstrably unfit for office. Someone who is such an utter moron as to treat creationism credibly has no business in government. But such opposition to science is a hallmark of the modern GOP; this is the same party that denies the proven reality of global warming as well.
Proven reality of Global Warming. Right…
last time I looked, the liberals-and democrats-were falling all over themselves to preach "understanding' for the moslems and their faith…..a faith that keeps women virtually as slaves, a faith that encourages murder and genocide, a faith that is so antithetical to modern science and life that they idolize the seventh century…yeah, now that faith is ratrional and we must "understand it' but let anyone profess a small doubt about certain scientific theories in our world, and they are Christians, boy, those are really the backward people! shame on you, liberals for being such hypocrites!
Anybody who talks about 'settled science' is not talking about science.
"Rubio's answer simply asserted the right of an open discussion on all theories which is the "tolerant" approach"
What is his position on phlogiston?
I wish that for ONCE a conservative would simply ask "why are you asking me this question?" and the premise of the question. Liberals NEVER get asked this question, because to the mind of a liberal "journalist" that is irrelevant or preposterous. I wish conservatives would do more to destroy the insane liberal view that conservatives are anti-science.
Remember, we did have one who did it better than anyone every has. Quickly, think. Yep, Newt!
He sits on The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation so maybe the problem is he should have at least a grade school understanding of basic science. Hell, my eight year old daughter knowsmhow old the earth is, and the universe too! Why is this so much to ask for?
Really? How old is it, and how does she know? What experiments did she conduct to learn that information? n nOr are you telling me she is able to parrot back uncritically the answer her teacher gave her? That ain't science, my friend, that's mimicry.
So any information one does not come by first hand isn't reliable? nDo you not believe washington crossed the delaware because you weren't there to witness it?
Radioactive decay and the resulting isotope proportions for one.
"He and his party will suffer, and should suffer, if they are seen as agnostic on, or standing against, science." n nReally? This does not seem to hurt Democrats. They embrace the anti-science myth of global warming. A large number of their elites are also postmodernists who absurdly believe there is no such thing as objective truth.
I just want to emphasize that I'm not advocating conservatives ignore or avoid questions about the culture. My point is simply that they better learn how to "finesse" the conservative positions. Remember how Gingrich answered the immigration question(not a cultural issue, per se)? If Romney had such a nuanced position, he might be president-elect today. Sounding "tough" will get us nowhere. The culture is garbage. Our moral capital is fast decaying. As David suggests, one does not have to be an Evangelical or Lubavitcher to be worried. We're in trouble, but we have to confront these issues directly without offending. To me, the conservative who does this best is William Bennett. Try listening to his radio program in the morning.
I do not only occasionally listen to Bill Bennett—I also call into his program.
Bull's eye on the globull warming religion of the left, David Thomson. How can we forget? n nWith Gaia as the benevolent, but threatening deity, it has its high priesthood, The Goracle, catechisms which are taught in school, carbon credit indulgences, a Hot Hell and a Sustainable Heaven. Pilgrims go on eco tours and the faithful faithfully carry their dirty shopping bags and reusable coffee mugs, suffer heat and cold and collect sort, wash and de-label all their leavings, volunteering themselves as eager collectors of raw materials which they meekly hand over to mobster-controlled, unionized processors who in turn bill taxpayers for the expensive, energy-demanding and totally useless process of "recycling ." n nAnd they think they are rationalists.
It's fascinating that you refer to "the anti-science myth of global warming" when the fact is that the vast majority of scientists assert it to be factual. One could argue about the extent to which man has contributed or exacerbated it. Because there are a relatively small number of scientists who don't believe in global warming does not make it an anti-science myth.
The majority of scientists do not back CAGW, they back the null hypothesis; that our climate behaves normatively. This is because there is not a smidgen of empirical evidence to support a single point in the chain of absurd claims. All government-sponsored self-designated "climatologists" back it, of course, but they number in the hundreds and most of them are computer modeller weenies whose models have not predicted a single claim. CAGW, or "climate change" is a pseudoscience and is dead in the water, just like Lysenkoism, global cooling, phrenology and eugenics.
I don't understand what you are objecting to in my comment, and I would like to see a citation to back up your statement that the majority of scientists do not back it. I said that the majority of scientists believe the climate is changing, and many measurements have shown this to be the case. The argument that has been going on has been whether man has contributed to it, which I believe is what you are referring to as "the chain of absurd claims." Yet I said that there are disagreements about man's contribution.
Mr. Wehner, I hoped for a minute that you were kidding. Apparently, you aren't. Conservatives have got to confront the Leftist assumptions of the media at every turn. The Bushies bent over for eight years and allowed the Left to turn political discourse into a Left wing seminar. It is time to dismiss the kids, just as Rubio has done here. Please move on to something constructive.
To say with "certainty" that the earth is 4.5 million years old is to subscribe to the popular "scientific" belief. And that is exactly the trap Marco Rubio refused to fall into — brilliantly, I might add. __On the other hand, if the Bible is correct and God created the universe 6 or 7 thousand years ago, who says He would have to start all the rocks and vegetation at absolute zero? Why not rocks that look like they've aged a million years on the day He made them? Why not trees with rings that modern science "absolutely knows" are many-thousand years old, when in reality they're not?__People like Wehner insist on establishing their worldview on whatever science tells us . . . but how many times, over the centuries, has science been WRONG?!! __Science does NOT automatically give us the right answers. No matter HOW much "evidence" they drag out to support their views. Or, how much they suppress for the same reason!
"but how many times, over the centuries, has science been WRONG?!! __Science does NOT automatically give us the right answers." n nHow many times over the centuries have invocations of revealed religion such as the Bible, been wrong? nIslamic extremists to today invoke the Koran to justify terror, the Puritans in 17th century Massachusetts invoked the bible to justify burning witches, Christians throughout the centuries have used the Bible to justify persecution of the Jews. So yes the scientific consensus is sometimes wrong but at least it corrects itself and can be debated based on facts not unproven and unprovable assertions of divine revelation.
To say with "certainty" that the earth is 4.5 million years old is to subscribe to the popular "scientific" belief. And that is exactly the trap Marco Rubio refused to fall into — brilliantly, I might add. n nOn the other hand, if the Bible is correct and God created the universe 6 or 7 thousand years ago, who says He would have to start all the rocks and vegetation at absolute zero? Why not rocks that look like they've aged a million years on the day He made them? Why not trees with rings that modern science "absolutely knows" are many-thousand years old, when in reality they're not? n nPeople like Wehner insist on establishing their worldview on whatever science tells us . . . but how many times, over the centuries, has science been WRONG?!! n nScience does NOT automatically give us the right answers. No matter HOW much "evidence" they drag out to support their views. Or, how much they suppress for the same reason!
Peter Wehner needs to come clean on his dead-wrong analysis of the 2012 election and bad advice he gave to Mitt Romney before he starts nit picking others.
The absurd thing about this discussion–and Peter Wehner really should know better–is that it is vastly worse that Democrats oppose the U.S. Constitution than that Rubio supposedly opposes "Science". n nI think, in all honestly, Peter Wehner wants David Brooks' job at the NYT. 100% serious.
Wow! Talk about missing the point. Rubio's response was the only possible answer a conservative could give to a liberal attempting to bait him. Any response other that the one he gave would have immediately opened him to an avalanche of catcalls and ridicule from the entire MSM who see him as a possible 2016 Presidential threat. Rather he is or not is immaterial to the guttersnipes who thrive on the politics of personal destruction. To them it is never too early to destroy an individual.
I don't know where to start. First, Peter Wehner is -quite obviously- not a conservative and, as one poster says, maybe Commentary is moving in that direction. It has always been a challenge to synthetize science with faith. Millions and miilions of Christians, jews and others struggle with this every day. But -as Rubio- said, what does this have to do with the economy of the nation? Or dealing with the terrorists? nada. Secondly, if Peter Wehner really thinks that science is all, what is HIS position on abortion? Now that medicine and science are making it possible to have viable fetuses that are younger and younger, is Mr. Peter Wehner going to side with the Pro-choice advocates? i rather doubt it- and this is the crux. Peter Wehner is only a "conservative' when it comes to economics-_and even that may be in doubt- but when it comes to the soul of conservatives- he is no conservative.
Hey everyone, Michaelmas is here! Get your torches and pitchforks, we gonna string up some RINOs!
I agree with Mr Wehner. If you want to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old you might as well go back to the belief that the Universe rotates around the Earth.
I haven’t read the book Mr Wehner recommends, but there are plenty of other books out there that describe the central and critical role of Christianity in the advent of Science. There are many active and devoted Christians who are also dedicated and prominent scientists.
If you want to continue seeing Republicans lose elections, keep voting for people who are convinced that the Earth is 6000 years old and that women can end a pregnancy when it is truly the result of rape.
What an unusual article. Anyway, for the Jewish content, Rabbi Nathan Slifkin, the "Zoo Rabbi," an Orthodox, does the best job in reconciling Torah with evolution. I'm a big fan of his elegant logic. He does this not by the usual device of coming up with made-up, convenient arguments about compression of time, relativity stretches and squeezes and such nonsense, but by stating that not all Bible passages are meant to be taken literally, something which Maimonides and even Rabbi Soloveitchik accepted. His position that the Chazal were wrong on a number of factual scientific issues did cause a stir, but it too is supported by tradition. The Haredi did issue a ban on his work, but only within heir community and did not declare R' Slifkin a heretic. Then again, search the topic and seek advice, as I'm not an expert on this matter…and, ehem, I'm not even Jewish, so you folks are better off talking to your Rabbi. n n
Thanks for pointing out Rabbi Slifkin's book. Actually, he has been ostracized and marginalized by the Haredi community and his interpretations have not found favor in the ultra-right, fundamentalsit camp. However, regardless of how one interprets genesis , I have yet to see how it affects ecomomic policy in Israel. One may argue that it affects political policy- the settlers re-settle the whole of israel because of their belief in G-d's promise of the land- but it has to do with concrete, easily provable facts- that the Jews have lived there for millenia-not an esoteric belief in the six-day creation. Clearly, religion can influence thought and, to some extent , policy, but in the United States, whether one believes in an old world or a young world- has very little to bear on the capacity and the qualification of leading the world's greates country- and a quasi religous one to boot.
R'Skifkin's site is definitely worth a read. It has a section which shows the dialogue in the form of letters going back and forth and a fairly detailed explanation by Slifkin. We need to be careful with generalizing about Haredim, though, because not all reject evolution or Slifkin. The concern over evolution among some of the older rabbis and their followers is mainly concern over the philosophical messages of primitive social Darwinism and the insistence that the universe as is occured by sheer chance. In that they are not entirely wrong to challenge such political and unprovable notions.
Continued… n nI'm a bit puzzled, though, that Peter would declare that he knows that the Earth is old. That's odd, for while I personally go with evolution, natural selection and all that, not being a scientist all I can say is that I strongly believe that to be the case based on what to me is reasonable evidence from a multitude of sources. Peter may believe that he knows, but I wager that had to look up the age of the earth.
“He and his party will suffer, and should suffer, if they are seen as agnostic on, or standing against, science.”r nr nReally, they should suffer? Explain how? Extermination from public life, a special camp, a special uniform?r nr nThank you for making up my mind on renewing my subscription.
Let's get real Pete. You don't give a rat's ass how old the earth is. This question has one purpose: to intimidate, humiliate and marginalize people who aren't like the questioner. To let a self-congratulatory clique of snobs think about how superior they are to others. There are a great many wacky beliefs out there: scientology, astrology, big foot, UFOs, fortune telling, ghosts. Most aren't useful to the left, so they're never an issue.
Hmm…Rubio's answer was the same as Obama's, if I recall correct…oh, wait. I don't think Obama had to answer that STUPID question. n nYeah, here's the question I want to ask Joe Biden: "When did you get hit with the stupid stick?" n nConservatives: stop being the boy scout and answering every moronic question with such earnestness. Get a clue already. And then you chide Rubio about not being interested in how old the earth is, etc. I'm sorry, but this article just confirmed what Democrats think about us. And we let them, that's the stupid part. n nTom
My wife will be glad that I now have no reason to waste time on this site that I thought was somewhat conservative in nature. So a man's views on the earth's origins have now disqualified him from being president? Sure, if he thought the earth were brought about by little green men I might doubt his sanity. But there are a number of people who believe the earth is young, and guess what, they're ALL small government republicans who feel that government should not decide such things for us. Mr. Wehner and friends on Commentary would probably love the fact that Maryland (where I live) just allowed for gay marriage. And where does that take people who refuse to acknowledge the 'rightness' of the homosexual lifestyle? Will we too be subject to the whims of intellectuals who are now to determine what is ok and what is not ok to believe? I guess in the end conservatives such as myself are just a big group of ignorant voters that Mr. Wehner would love to court but inwardly thinks are fools and idiots! No wonder Romney could not excite the base, with advisors such as this! Good riddance Commentary!
Taekyunkim, I'd give this site a little more time.
Keep it up guys. Here is the kernel of the question and why it is not asked of liberals. The conservative orthodoxy is to keep the evangelical base happy either by hewing to its beliefs, or by appearing to honor them. It is, in fact, the case that the earth is billions of years old. If a conservative acknowledges that fact, that conservative couldn't get elected dog catcher. However, to respond the way Rubio does shows to the majority of people (and it is the majority) not that they are "anti-science", but that he doesn't have the strength of his convictions. Either say, "Yes, the Earth is 6000 years old and Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs" and alienate liberals like me who would prefer a fact-based conversation rather than superstition. Or say "No, the Earth is billions of years old" and suffer the denunciation of the base. Doing why Rubio does is the milquetoast of why you lost the election. You know your policies are unpopular with the majority, but you won't own them.
a fact? no, a theory and one that one cannot prove or dispute. but that is not the importasnt point here. What the heck does it have to do with leading the country? Right now, it is Obama who is being anti-science by making it more difficult each day to reap the rewards of modern science, whether in oil exploration, medicine, even technology. so spare us the lament of conservaitves being stupid. Liberals arem ore rigid, more doctrinaire, more fascist than any conservative might be.
The issue is Marc Rubio and his assertion that there is dispute and that he is unqualified to weigh in on it. You too assert that it is an unprovable theory. That is just not true. Either you and Rubio truly have no knowledge of the issue, in which case how can you possibly say there is dispute. Or you and Rubio are being dishonest in your argument. The question to Rubio is more about to whose sensibilities is he willing to offend. Your assertion of dispute is a weaselly way of avoiding admitting that you might believe the Earth is 6000 years old. There is no legitimate model that provides for that. The only evidence and argument for it is “I read it in a book I like” (hat tip to Patton Oswalt).
"You too assert that it is an unprovable theory." n nIt's astounding how all you libs here who have gone to the barricades for science, don't understand the definition and limits of basic scientific concepts and terms. Theories are merely developed models. They are called theories because they cannot be fully tested, proven or falsified. In the case of natural selction, the age of the Earth or the universe, the current theories are very powerful on many fronts and can be supported by evidence. But not fully and not always.
There is a truth, and that truth is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That truth conflicts with the belief of a group of people that are supposedly politically valuable to Marco Rubio and to conservatives. That group of people believe something that is false; they believe the earth to be 6000 years old because that's what a book told them. As this most recent election proved, that group of people is not enough anymore to help conservatives win elections. So Marco Rubio's "I am not a scientist" is a huge cop-out. He's pandering to a base that is no longer effective for him and making himself look a fool because the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. n nThe question to Marco Rubio was not "What is the status of the debate about the Earth's age?" The question was "What do you think?" And he showed that he doesn't think. Even you Abe, rather than actually say what you think, throw up your hands and essentially say, "Nothing is knowable". n nWhat a cop-out. Put your marker down…is the Earth 4.5 billion years old? Are evangelicals wrong in their belief the Earth is 6000 years old? Do fiscal conservatives care about the age of the Earth? Have they just found it useful over the past 30 years to mouth the shibboleths to the evangelicals to dupe them into their vote? What has the religious right gotten for their loyalty? While the religiuos right gets more and more frustrated at lack of progress, the general population moves further and further away from their beliefs. Fiscal conservatives tried to play the middle against both ends. Rubio is still trying it, speaking in dogwhistles that everyone can hear now.
Al Gore has gotten away with all his global warming pseudoscience that has been proven to be highly inaccurate. This post only serves to reinforce conservatives' intimidation of the main stream media power, which, unfortunately is real. My feeling is that the left is driving themselves over a cliff by marginalizing conservatives thereby dismissing the validity of their fiscal ideas. But there is a mighty judgment coming. n
Metinks you really upset our lib guests, Raphael, given you low score. The global warming fraud is their Waterloo. They painted themselves into a corner with it and now will do anything…cheat, lie, impersonate, try to ban… to preserve the faith. Alas, the temperature records, even with the flat-out lies and fraudulent tricks, "adjustments" and "forcings" fail to cooperate. The fraction of a degree rise since the Little Ice Age which they tweaked and freaked over appears to be slowing and we may be heading into a cooler period. So, now they switched to "catastrophic weather," which is even more ridiculous. But the have The Goracle, who made his millions from the carbon credits and is ready to make some more.
"One of the attributes of conservatism, at least as I understand it, is openness to evidence, including scientific evidence, and embracing reality. " n nUh, no, rejection of evidence is an attribute of conservatism. That's why the right-wing is filled with people who reject proven science like evolution and global warming.
Evolution is not "proven science," it is a successful, highly plausible theory which is empirically testable and falsifiable on many levels. I happen to believe in it unless a better theory comes along. To you, it's evidently gospel. "Global warming" does not resemble the theory of evolution in any way as it lacks empirical evidence, cannot be tested or falsified and all its predictions failed. It is, simply a belief resembling a religion and it is fueled by financial concerns. It it is also fairly dead and gone, which is why it was never mentioned in the presidential debates.
nI have no problem with this answer, Rubio is right… This question has nothing to do with the economy or national security.
"This question has nothing to do with the economy or national security." n nHe's no more of an economist than he is a scientist, and no more of a general than he is a scientist. n nSo maybe he shouldn't be in government at all, if he has no relevant, current information on those, either.
Wow. n nToken political liberal here, sticking my head in for a look around. I was told that a conservative writer at a conservative website was actually *gasp* making sense! And, by golly, he is! If such an attitude (i.e. not denying reality) gets any traction among conservatives, it could be a real problem for liberal political causes. But clearly the smackdown he's getting from the True Believers here indicates that American conservatism isn't going to find it's way out of the wilderness anytime soon, that they will go on eating their own for the foreseeable future. Thanks for putting my fears to rest.
To the more general point you make, I'm reminded of this quote(whose author I do not remember): "I would rather lose for a cause that will someday win, than win for a cause that will someday lose."
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." n n-The Dalai Lama
In all this focus on the age of the earth, let’s admit that if the physical world is a self-contained system that works by impersonal, blind, unbroken natural laws than nothing beyond nature could have any conceivable relevance to what happens in nature. And if this is the right accounting for reality, we are the random objects of an impersonal universe. n nBut let’s be clear that there’s not a shred of scientific evidence to support this notion. Many try to stretch science into a philosophy (or some kind of religion) and give people the misleading impression that the science of evolution offers more than it is capable of telling. Philosophical naturalism is not a scientific way of seeing the world but a faith-based view. n nHonest scientists know that it’s simply outside the function of science to address the beginning of universe or to speak to any kind of transcendent meaning or ordered morality. The narrative of biological evolution (for all it offers scientifically) cannot logically lead us to any hierarchy of beings beyond superiority in survival. n nScience can observe and describe in fascinating detail what is within the universe and speak to purposes related to adaptability and survival in the physical world. Only God can prescribe what is beyond the descriptions of scientific inquiry and speak to purposes of eternal significance beyond the limitations of the physical world.
Attention all you liberal spambots who've been tracking back here to chastize "anti-science" conservatives and how superior your side is. The following (as picked up by NRO today) was uttered by the man you chose to re-elect president four years ago: n n"I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part…. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know." n nImagine that! The Annointed One voted "present" on this issue too!
Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say? n nA: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know. n nThe Daily Caller reveals the name of the senator in this exchange, in case you haven't guessed already. (not Marco Rubio) n
Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is moving upwards in my estimation, said it best when he recently stated that the GOP must cease being the “stupid party.” Unfortunately, Rubio’s comments on the age of the earth perpetuate that problem and, furthermore, hamper his chances of being elected president in 2016. Mr. Wehner is right to call Rubio out. Whether Rubio is merely misinformed, ignorant, or trying to pander, the comment suggests he needs to do some more studying before he proposes to lead a 21st century country.
Left-wing news outlets, like GQ, love to ask conservative politicians questions like this because they know it will elicit a goofy and controversial answer. And so this question was thrown in, even though it isn’t relevant to anything. It serves the purpose of “proving” that the GOP is anti-science, despite the fact that progressives, like Sen. Mark Pryor (D. Ark.), have the exact same views. For example, Mark Pryor, a staunch Democrat, expresses the same confusion on issues regarding the age of the Earth and the theory of evolution in the documentary Religulous (which I highly recommend). nBut I am going to move on from that. The press has made it a full time avocation to ask Republicans “gotcha” questions, then bashfully claim they were just “reporting the news.” It is not so much reporting the news, but as this last election cycle proved it is “creating” the news. n
There is something more important to talk about. First is the nexus between religion and science. The two are not in competition for each other, nor are they “competing theories.” They are two distinct and different realms of human thought. nFurthermore, Rubio should know that the Roman Catholic has made its peace with evolution. Pope John Paul II stated in 1996 that, “this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory." nPersonal religious beliefs are personal religious beliefs. And no one is hampering anyone from teaching what they believe is the origin of the Earth. The First Amendment guarantees that. But the mistake here is confusing a religious belief with what ought to be taught in the science classroom. And that is Rubio’s key mistake, and it suggests a lack of maturity. n
Conservatives ought to be leading the charge on education issues. Indeed, that our public schools are so mediocre is immoral and should be a national disgrace. Conservatives should point out that we need strong public schools so that we can have a strong middle class and more ladders up into the middle class. Education reform ought to be a top priority, and conservatives must raise the clarion call that we will permit no obstacle to obstruct that goal. And we must point out that we need to boost America’s science aptitude. nThe GOP’s reformist governors, like Jindal, get this. They understand that good schools lead to good students, which leads to good employees, which leads to a better economy, a better middle class and less welfare dependency. K-12 education is the core building block to this . n
But we are not going to improve America’s abysmal public schools or improve America’s science aptitude, by placing phony “creationism” or “intelligent design” curriculum in the science classroom where it doesn’t belong. nAmerica is alone in the industrial world when it comes to acceptance of the theory of evolution. Only 12% accept the basic scientific consensus. 53% consider themselves “creationists.” A 2005 study found American ranked only ahead of Turkey out of thirty-four nations in terms of acceptance of evolution. This is, to put it mildly, embarrassing. nWhen politicians like Rubio muddle the facts, this only further compounds America’s woeful scientific illiteracy. nEvolution is the core of modern biology. America is not going to lead in the 21st century if we don’t have workers, policymakers, voters, and students that understand this. n
Furthermore, the POTUS, must be scientifically literate if he or she is going to understand that increasingly complex issues that will dominate the rest of the century. Rubio should show that he up to that standard of leadership instead of acting like a class clown. Meanwhile, Jindal has entered the field as the first serious GOP presidential candidate. Not surprising when you consider that Jindal has always had a reputation for doing his homework. n