An Example of Why (R) Can't Win if It's Core Base is Religion-Based

[Warfish]

Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationism

By Dan Merica and Eric Marrapodi, CNN

Washington (CNN) – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that have provoked the ire of liberal blogs, leaving the door open to creationism in responding to a recent question about the age of the Earth.

When GQ’s Michal Hainey asked Rubio, in an interview released Monday, “How old do you think the Earth is,” the rising Republican star described the debate about the planet’s age as “one of the great mysteries.”

“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the interviewer. “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.”

“Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras,” Rubio continued, “I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”

Most scientists agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old. Christian Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, argue that the weeklong account of God creating the Earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the Earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

Left-leaning blogs and sites like ThinkProgress and Huffington Post jumped on Rubio’s comments, with the Zack Beauchamp from ThingProgress writing, “To suggest we can’t know how old the Earth is, then, is to deny the validity of these scientific methods altogether — a maneuver familiar to Rubio, who also denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

Rubio is regarded as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016, though the senator says his visit last week to Iowa, home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, had “nothing to do with 2016.”

His response to GQ’s age of the Earth query has also provoked questions about his political aspirations. Dave Weigel of Slate writes, “How can you read that and not think ‘Iowa’? ” The state is the first to hold a presidential caucus in 2016.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.

The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.

The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.

Rubio attends a Baptist church in southern Florida but also considers himself “a practicing Catholic.”

He was born Catholic, but his family converted to Mormonism when Rubio was 8 years old, according to Rubio’s recent memoir. The family left its LDS faith behind when it moved from Nevada back to Florida and Rubio was confirmed in the Catholic Church.

Catholic teaching is that science and faith are not at odds with one another and it is possible to believe what scientists say about the Earth’s age and in God. But many evangelical churches, including Baptist ones, promote a version of creationism.

When CNN reached out to Rubio’s Baptist church in Florida on Monday, a person answering the phone would not comment on its teachings about the Earth’s age and said that a church representative was unlikely to be available in the near term.

During the GQ interview, Rubio argued that “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.”

For the past 30 years, the “equal-time argument” –- the idea that Creationism taught alongside evolution -– has been popular method for Creationists to advance their cause. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.

Until such time that an (R) Candidate can simply come out and say "it's as old as science thinks it is, right?" (R) will not and cannot be the party it could be.

Creationism may be supported by a whopping 46% (a stat I'm frankly embarassed about) but it's not going to win elections.

There is only one right answer to this question. And it isn't a mumble-mouthed non-answer defense of creationism.

The ignorance of creationism and religious-based politics has to end, it has to.

[Bonhomme Richard]

That was actually a good answer to a stupid question. They tried to trap him into alienating one particular group, and he essentially responded with - "Whaddya want from me, I'm not a scientist. People can believe whatever they want, and even scientists can't agree on the true age of the earth." It was an artful dodge.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

That was actually a good answer to a stupid question. They tried to trap him into alienating one particular group, and he essentially responded with - "Whaddya want from me, I'm not a scientist. People can believe whatever they want, and even scientists can't agree on the true age of the earth." It was an artful dodge.

It does not matter if you, we or anyone else thinsk it's a "supid question".

It's not, for the sole reason that it exposes this rediculous clinging to creationism.

I disagree that it was an artful dodge. What it was was an easy obvious haymaker of a question and he failed to dodge it at all. He was hit right in the nose with it, as intended by the questioner. His reply puts Rubio in the "American Taliban" section of politics, the folks who put religious ideals and beliefs ahead of science and modern ideas of secular rights and states and facts not based off faith and religion.

A man who can believe the world is 10,000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is a man who can believe God made women to be subserviant to men and legislate that way. The same "above reproach" faith-based source is involved.

(R) has got to stop doing this. Or there needs to be a right-leaning alternative to (R), simple as that.

[CraigFL]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

That was actually a good answer to a stupid question. They tried to trap him into alienating one particular group, and he essentially responded with - "Whaddya want from me, I'm not a scientist. People can believe whatever they want, and even scientists can't agree on the true age of the earth." It was an artful dodge.

agreed

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

...even scientists can't agree on the true age of the earth." It was an artful dodge.

None of them think it's 10k though.

Rubio should have just left it at "I'm not a scientist" and moved on.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It does not matter if you, we or anyone else thinsk it's a "supid question".

It's not, for the sole reason that it exposes this rediculous clinging to creationism.

I disagree that it was an artful dodge. What it was was an easy obvious haymaker of a question and he failed to dodge it at all. He was hit right in the nose with it, as intended by the questioner. His reply puts Rubio in the "American Taliban" section of politics, the folks who put religious ideals and beliefs ahead of science and modern ideas of secular rights and states and facts not based off faith and religion.

A man who can believe the world is 10,000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is a man who can believe God made women to be subserviant to men and legislate that way. The same "above reproach" faith-based source is involved.

(R) has got to stop doing this. Or there needs to be a right-leaning alternative to (R), simple as that.

What we need to do in this country is quit persecuting people for their religious beliefs. You are wrong on this. There is no public policy decisions being made on the basis of the age of the earth. The question was stupid and Rubio's answer was as good as it could have been. This was just a bad example. The larger point of removing religion from politics I agree with 100%.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

What we need to do in this country is quit persecuting people for their religious beliefs.

Nobody is being persecuted.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

What we need to do in this country is quit persecuting people for their religious beliefs. You are wrong on this.

So let me see if I have this strait....

It's wrong of ME to "persecute" via criticism the superstitious faith-based ignorance of science inherant in the creationist political movement.

But it's ok for THEM to "persecute" everyone else via criticism of a whole range of things based on the superstitious faith-based beliefs?

By the way, it's not persecution. At no point am I suggesting laws to ban this foolishness, or the like.

I'm simply saying that IMO someone who believes in creationism is ignorant, and unworthy of holding public office and public responsabillity, and should not be trusted to be making decisions that effect all of us.

The question was stupid and Rubio's answer was as good as it could have been.

Again, it wasn't stupid, because it did exactly what it was intended to do. Painted Rubio in a bad light as a defender of creationism.

And his answer could have been MUCH better, simply saying "ask science, now, did anyone have a question on public policy?"

[SafetyBlitz]

As a long as he doesn't push for creationism to be taught in science class, I don't care.

There is a large segment of the population that believes in creationism and since we're a democracy, it's understood that a large segment of Congress will believe the same.

The problem is in the classroom. We do our young people no favors teaching them God created the world in seven days or some form of intelligent design. Science class is about learning the scientific method and how much we've discovered of the natural world through that vehicle. It isn't for biblical political correctness.

[Ernie]

It is sad when someone of faith is felt to not be suitable to be President just because of their personal faith. I guess one must be pro abortion or a fornicator to be suitable these days.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Ernie

It is sad when someone of faith is felt to not be suitable to be President just because of their personal faith. I guess one must be pro abortion or a fornicator to be suitable these days.

How many Athiests/Agnostics are there are in Congress?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Ernie

It is sad when someone of faith is felt to not be suitable to be President just because of their personal faith. I guess one must be pro abortion or a fornicator to be suitable these days.

Do you feel a Muslim man, who believes women should serve men, not work, and be covered up 100%, and believes other faiths are evil, is suitable to be President?

Or is your sadness only when it's your own faith that is deemed unworthy?

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Ernie

It is sad when someone of faith is felt to not be suitable to be President just because of their personal faith.

You have it completely backwards. When was the last time the country had an atheist President?

The fact is membership of a religion, preferably Christianity, is a prerequisite for any kind politically powerful position in this country.

Warfish, I agree with your sentiment, and I do believe that the religious extremists are getting slowly pushed aside for more rational thinkers in the game of politics. It's a slow process, but we're moving in the right direction.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

What we need to do in this country is quit persecuting people for their religious beliefs. You are wrong on this. There is no public policy decisions being made on the basis of the age of the earth. The question was stupid and Rubio's answer was as good as it could have been. This was just a bad example. The larger point of removing religion from politics I agree with 100%.

46% of the respondents? LOL

Some people are selling out their intellect for their "faith"; and I use faith here in it's most base form. Whatever you get out of religion, if it doesn't help you alleviate your suffering, then what is the point? God must be a real prick if have to buy ancient ideas FIRST, in order to get the benefits of religious practice.

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Do you feel a Muslim man, who believes women should serve men, not work, and be covered up 100%, and believes other faiths are evil, is suitable to be President?

Or is your sadness only when it's your own faith that is deemed unworthy?

A rational Muslim would be worthy. A Muslim who feels like the one you mentioned would not.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Ernie

A rational Muslim would be worthy. A Muslim who feels like the one you mentioned would not.

There is nothing rational about creationism and a 10,000 year old Earth, Ernie.

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by Warfish

There is nothing rational about creationism and a 10,000 year old Earth, Ernie.

How old the earth is and how women are treated today are moral equivalents to you?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Ernie

How old the earth is and how women are treated today are moral equivalents to you?

The rejection of science and the rejection of basic equal human rights are equivalent factors for elimination for consideration for political leadership, yes.

It should also be mentioned that the beleifs of those who adhere to creationism are not particularly friendly to human rights either.

[cedk]

Originally Posted by Warfish

There is nothing rational about creationism and a 10,000 year old Earth, Ernie.

There is nothing logical or to put it better scientific about evolution just a belief sustained by scientist because they have no explanation for the apparent intelligences behind the human body ,earth, nature ,animal life etc

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by cedk

There is nothing logical or to put it better scientific about evolution just a belief sustained by scientist because they have no explanation for the apparent intelligences behind the human body ,earth, nature ,animal life etc

That is quite superficial, simplistic and erroneous. You are not making your church proud, here. Good thoughts.