Marco Rubio and the age of the Earth
More broadly, meanwhile, the fact that this kind of question is a “gotcha” at all is a much bigger problem for American Christianity than for Republican politicians. The goal of a political party is to win 51 percent of the vote and govern effectively, and as Rubio suggests, the ordinary work of politics can proceed even if some national politicians decline to take public views on the geological age of the earth. But the goal of Christianity is supposed to be the conversion of every human heart — yes, scientists and intellectuals included — and the central claim of Christianity is that the faith offers, not a particular political agenda or an economic program, but the true story of the world entire. The more Christians convince themselves that their faith’s core is identical with the modern innovation of fundamentalism, and in direct conflict with the best available modern biology and geology, the less attainable that goal and the less tenable that central claim.
Those believers whose sensibilities Rubio was presumably trying to avoid offending would do well to meditate on the words of Saint Augustine, who like most of the greatest minds of historic Christianity insisted that biblical interpretation take place in the light of reason as well as faith…
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The proper response:
“A gentleman doesn’t ask a lady her age.” With a laugh and move on.
ProfShadow on November 20, 2012 at 8:12 AM
But don’t offend the Muslims. It’s ok to pander to their beliefs. – the Left
MechanicalBill on November 20, 2012 at 8:25 AM
As a Catholic who is willing to accept evolution and a very old Earth, I agree with the author that conservatives should not be bound to “tow the line” on fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture.
Having said that, though, I disagree with his underlying premise that we should stop trying to challenge “scientific consensus” on issues. The idea that science is apolitical is extremely naive. Whether we’re talking about climate change, stem cell research, or the age of the planet, many scientists do indeed have an agenda to push. That could be a directly political agenda, or it could simply be a desire to continue receiving funding dependent on conforming to a political agenda. But, either way, not all science is clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
And having said all that, are we really still discussing Marco Rubio’s answer to a question about the age of the Earth? And in discussing it, we’re discussing it from the perspective of how he should answer the question to make the most political sense. Instead, how about we value honesty and principle in our politicians and let them answer truthfully about their personal beliefs without having to make calculations about the political fallout?
Shump on November 20, 2012 at 8:25 AM
Let he who is without a vulnerability cast the first stone. (Shouldna thrown that post election rock at Romney….)
apostic on November 20, 2012 at 8:25 AM
I wish more politicians (and journalist) were honest about what they don’t know. From the Religion of Christianity to the religion of Global Warming, their arrogance can cost us a lot of money.
MechanicalBill on November 20, 2012 at 8:31 AM
The honest and principled answer is that the Earth, the Sun, and all the planets in our solar system are about 4.6 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million years. The oldest rock ever found on our planet was 4.28 billion years old (in the Canadian shield).
SauerKraut537 on November 20, 2012 at 8:33 AM
If we had $10 for each day the earth has existed, we could pay of our national debt.
Wait, that can’t be right, can it?
forest on November 20, 2012 at 8:40 AM
I thought Rubio’s answer was fine. I don’t understand why Douthat thinks Rubio should have aceded “respect” for “scientific consensus” advocating the billions of years theory or why he should feel it necessary to disavow the Biblical creation account.
Why does nobody ever suggest that the “scientists and intellectuals” study translations of the Bible from the original Hebrew and/or take the time to read Bible scholars like John MacArthur? It might expand their thinking.
DaydreamBeliever on November 20, 2012 at 8:45 AM
I suspect you missed the point of my comment…
Shump on November 20, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Politics: the art of twisting oneself into a pretzel while appearing to be a straight arrow.
ExpressoBold on November 20, 2012 at 8:48 AM
I disagree slightly with this:
Politicians use science to push their agenda. Even if AGW was being ignored by every politician on the planet, the scientist conducting research in this area would still passionately defend their research, and they should. The problem is not the scientist studying global warming, or stem cell research, or the Higgs boson. This is all very good work where even if the science is proven wrong, man is going to have a better understanding of the world we live in. The issue is politicians who want to manipulate this science in a self serving way to reach their political ends.
HarryBackside on November 20, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Actually, climate change should be a non-issue for those who believe in Darwinian evolution. To fight it goes against the grain of what they say they believe.
DaydreamBeliever on November 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM
No. Scientists are political. They will happily push End Of The World nonsense because it brings them funding. It makes them into brave warriors instead of nerds who study water vapor. Which is all they are.
41% of Democrats believe in young Earth Creationism. Funny how they never get asked about it.
JohnBrown on November 20, 2012 at 9:03 AM
I said yesterday that no one would be bothered by Rubio’s comment except people looking for some excuse to be offended. Douthat tries really hard here to get people to be offended.
Doomberg on November 20, 2012 at 9:04 AM
I find it difficult to trust any scientist who is either grant or agenda driven – especially in those cases where my own life experience is at odds with scientific proclamations, such as AGW.
OldEnglish on November 20, 2012 at 9:08 AM
I feel I should say something, but I guess it’s so much more fun to watch what yall will say.
Badger40 on November 20, 2012 at 9:08 AM
They are supposed to test their hypothesis against the observed data. Real scientists are not supposed to be so invested in their hypothesis being proved true. In fact, they are supposed to help destroy it if possible. And the real scientists probably do. But the real scientists don’t attract funding, media, or appointments on the political IPCC. Instead we get a corrupt media advocating “consensus” as if that is how science is conducted. While also not being the least bit skeptical of how that “consensus” was formed. If it confirms their bias, they repeat it to infinity and back. Such as the 97% claim. Not one media hack reports the huge qualifier that it was an email poll of 10,000 scientists. Of which, less than half bothered to respond. Then they must not have liked the results because they further reduced the number to only include “climate experts”. Which reduced the number of “scientists” to 72. So 97% of 72 scientists agree with their “consensus” view. I’ll bet if fundamentalist Christians were allowed to use those propaganda tactics, they could claim 97% of scientists say the earth is a few years old. But their morals would be more likely to prevent them from doing that.
MechanicalBill on November 20, 2012 at 9:17 AM
What do they want? A birth certificate?
forest on November 20, 2012 at 9:23 AM
You go where the thruth takes you, wherever it takes you.
Unfortunately, many of these people do not have the ability to judge truth from fiction very well.
They could not think themselves out of a paper bag.
I don’t care what degree(s) they have. A lot of morons are fully capable of getting pHDs.
You do not have to be a genius to get one.
You do, however, need to be very good at what you do to be competent.
How many people are really competent in the fields they are in?
I’m looking at every profession: nurses, mechanics, secretaries, scientists, politicians, etc.
Just bcs you have the degree & have been doing it for 20+years doesn’t mean you actually know what you’re doing.
I know a guy who rides colts for people & his dad is one of the best hands I’ve ever known & knows his horses.
Meanwhile, the son bounces on a horse like a fat kid, falls off a lot, & the horses he trains are $hit when they come from him.
I can do better & I have none of his qualifications.
So there ya go.
Badger40 on November 20, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Rubio gave a good answer. I wonder how “I don’t know, inform me Mr. Reporter” would have ended. Kind of hard for the reporter not to expose his bias after that question.
The flip side of that is to ask a Democrat senator “Do you believe God created the earth in 7 days and if so, how old do you think earth is?”. You would be banned from the press corp that has access to Democrats forever.
Buddahpundit on November 20, 2012 at 9:33 AM
Mr. Douthat must be apoplectic at any thing written or spoken by the Founders or any president ever elected. Get over yourself, Ross. Or at least be consistent.
Cindy Munford on November 20, 2012 at 9:36 AM
In fact, I’ll give $100 to anyone who asks Obama on video “Do you believe God created the earth in 7 days?” I don’t think he can duck it. Maybe he can.
Buddahpundit on November 20, 2012 at 9:36 AM
He would say he can’t discuss it because there is an ongoing investigation.
Night Owl on November 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM
How so? If we were advanced or evolved enough to (a) accurately predict future climate, (b) determine that we influence it, (c) and figure out ways to keep our global temperatures at an optimum level, wouldn’t that benefit us along with all other species of life?
Fezzik on November 20, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Scientific consensus changes from century to century and even decade to decade and will continue to do so. You can’t say science contradicts the Bible until you know all the science there is to know.
tommyboy on November 20, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Liberals are no less susceptible to being embarrassed by science conflicting with their beliefs. The media just doesn’t WANT to play gotcha with them. We should start. For example:
1. Do you believe a viable human fetus is an actual human being, or does magic occur during birth to make it a person? If so, how does the magic happen in the case of a cesarean birth?
2. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice, or a genetic disposition? If genetic, should Obamacare cover prenatal genetic treatments to correct genetic abnormalities such as homosexuality or down’s syndrome?
3. Given the survival of the fittest makes the entire population stronger, why are you a supporter of food stamps?
What questions would you add?
foreman3 on November 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM
1. AGW is not the issue. CAGW is the issue. Do you understand the difference?
2. Why are you pretending that you’ve never heard of Post Normal Science? Why are you pretending that climate scientists are traditional scientists?
3. Does defending “their research” include blocking FOIA requests to see their raw data? Does defending “their research” include attempts to rig the peer review process?
4. Do you think that Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick helped man have a BETTER understanding of the world we live in?
5. What planet have you been living on?
blink on November 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Do you believe that CO2 is a pollutant as declared by EPA director?
Do you believe that microwave ovens contaminate food?
Do you believe that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water?
Do you believe that the use of alar on apples had to be discontinued?
Do you believe that banning DDT in Africa was a good thing?
I think I could go on and on forever.
blink on November 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM
It’s hard to be a politician and deal with questions like this. The myth of an old Earth are so strong and ingrained that’s it’s hard to counter without causing a major media distraction.
But the evidence for a young Earth… maybe about 6,500 years old is well founded. The evidence is far, far more compelling than for an Earth that is supposed to be 4.6 billion years old.
Axion on November 20, 2012 at 10:15 AM
I continue to be mystified at why more GOP politicians do not simply challenge the premise of the question, restate the question in more balanced terms and then answer the reframed question. Rumsfeld and Gingrich are two of the few that use this tactic to great effect. Start practicing, GOPers!
rcpjr on November 20, 2012 at 10:17 AM
The correct answer to all of those questions is: NO
Axion on November 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Yes, I do actually. How many scientists are researching alternative theories regarding climate change, and how many of those scientists got involved because they feel that the consensus is wrong? When the dust finally settles, we are going to have a better understanding of the effect that things like solar radiation and clouds have on the earths climate.
HarryBackside on November 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM
God created the universe in 6 days, not 7, and it is what He did – or rather did not do – on the 7th day that is the most important point of the faith lesson found at the beginning of Genesis. Again, if God is omnipotent, temporal concepts like ‘last Tuesday’ have no real meaning to Him. He has no past, He has no now, He has no future. He created all time when He created everything else and He is no more bound by time than He is by any of His other creations. Ancient Hebrews understood this, although modern liberal and squishy neo-con journalists apparently do not.
Knott Buyinit on November 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM
There are no words.
It’s astonishing that you support fraud – fraud that misled, and continues to mislead, the world.
What’s next? Are you going to say that you think that Bernie Madoff was good for the world, too?
blink on November 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM
HarryBackside, I need to ask how you can believe that something which grossly misleads a huge percentage of the world’s population could ever be considered something which “helped man have a BETTER understanding of the world we live in”?
blink on November 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Here are the questions that you didn’t answer. I’m particularly interested in #3, but I would be interested to know if you’ve ever heard of Post Normal Science.
blink on November 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM
blink, you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills, and stop distorting other people’s comments by cherry picking certain lines by ignoring the proper context. You method of debate is no different than the climate scientists who you claim are grossly misleading.
If you took the time to read my comment, and are capable of understanding the context, then you should be able to restate the specific areas I described when it comes to having a better understanding of the world.
Of course if you’re more interested in broad attacks rather than an actual conversation, then you won’t bother.
HarryBackside on November 20, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Inconsistency or not, I’ll take the liberals’ newfound penchant for supposed compassion. We’ve all seen the consequences of their darker eugenics side.
John the Libertarian on November 20, 2012 at 10:42 AM
I could care less about your questions. You’re trying to attack my position, without having a proper understanding of what my position is.
HarryBackside on November 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Rubio should have asked the guy why he asked him that question.
Why don’t Republicans start confronting the media to theirs faces, instead of whining about if afterwards or merely writing about it on the internet? It’s time to get aggressive with these people.
Moesart on November 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM
So you just decided to just ignore the rest of my comment?
Notice I am referring to the wisdom we have gained from the research being done by those who are skeptical of man made global warming.
You doing the same thing the left does when the cite the general welfare clause of the Constitution, but ignore the enumerated powers that provides context.
HarryBackside on November 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM
I fully understood the context, and your comment was absurd within the context it was made.
You made the assumption that climate scientists adhere to “normal” scientific methods. This was an absurd assumption which made your statement absurd.
blink on November 20, 2012 at 11:02 AM
I understand your position thoroughly. The problem is that I also understand the CAGW debate thoroughly. Your position is INCREDIBLY naive. It’s not rooted in reality.
blink on November 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Why are you ignoring the damage that is already done by the fraudulent Hockey Stick? Billions of people now have a flawed (not better) understanding of the “world we live in” because of it.
blink on November 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM
I stand corrected. What is a day? It wouldn’t be communicated to humans through the bible if we aren’t supposed to have some concept of it. Although I don’t know how he created light before he created the sun, moon and stars. Unless darkness and lightness has religious significance and God changed the system for regulating it on the 4th day.
Buddahpundit on November 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM
I disagree. The Hockey Stick has been exposed, and in the process motivated a countless number of scientists to research other sources of climate change. Are you suggesting that there is no value in the research invested in linking solar radiation to temperature change? What about the CLOUD experiment at CERN which is investigating the relationship between cosmic radiation and cloud formation? Is it your position that this research doesn’t provide us with a better understanding of the world? Would this research even be happening if it weren’t for the fraudulent Hockey Stick?
HarryBackside on November 20, 2012 at 11:16 AM
It’s been exposed for a tiny percentage of the world’s population. The rest of the world continues to be misled.
No. I’m also not suggesting that there is no value in establishing controls for entities such as the one run by Bernie Madoff, but that doesn’t mean that Bernie Madoff was good for the world.
Michael Mann’s fraud should in no way be credited with being the cause of esearch invested in linking solar radiation to temperature change. Suggesting so is absurd.
YES! Of course it would be. All these questions existed long before the fraudulent Hockey Stick.
blink on November 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM
HarryBackside, have you heard of Post Normal Science? Do you know what it is?
blink on November 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Yeah, I strongly disagree with Douthat’s contentions here and what he is suggesting Augustine meant. Douthat’s implication is that Scripture should be read in deference to experience and the light of reason instead of with those things. Experience and reason, as in science, tell us you can’t raise the dead by waving your hand over someone and saying a few words. But only the most liberal theologians around would suggest that means Jesus could not have raised the dead.
There seems to be this requirement that someone must pay deference to whatever thing science has come up with. Augustine isn’t suggesting that. He certainly would not have suggested it given the way science is now practiced which not only precedes with the idea that there is no creator but that any answer we find which does not support that there is no creator must be false. This was simply not how science was viewed in Augustine’s time.
I don’t see much difference between what Rubio answered and what Douthat suggests either.
Rubio in mentioning recorded history and stating he isn’t a scientist is showing respect for scientific consensus. Why must he regurgitate numbers? Where is Rubio suggesting he has trouble reconciling scientific consensus with his faith? Why would he even mention this?
Why should Rubio state this? Where does he suggest the 7 days in Genesis HAVE to be literal 24 hour days? He specifically allows that they may not be.
I think here Rubio’s answer is undoubtedly better than Douthat’s. Isn’t Rubio’s talk of multiple theories and teaching them all the same as Douthat’s conversation with partners? And I for one would not be making deference to school boards, especially over parents.
I think Douthat’s real problem here is that he thinks Rubio as a Catholic should be regurgitating whatever the Church says on this matter. The age of the Earth is not an article of faith. The Church has come up with answers on it mostly because we demand answer for everything. At it’s heart the Church teaches Scripture doesn’t definitively say and gives deference to experience and reason on the matter. But it’s not an article of faith. So people are free to believe what they want. Rubio allows for this while Douthat doesn’t. I don’t think Augustine would agree with Douthat either.
Rocks on November 20, 2012 at 12:01 PM