Getty Images
In August 2011, as his presidential campaign was just getting underway, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) fielded an interesting question from a young boy in New Hampshire: "How old do you think the Earth is?" Given Perry's general aversion to science, it was hardly an unreasonable thing to ask.
"I don't have any idea," the governor replied. "I know it's pretty old. So, it goes back a long, long way." It was unclear whether Perry considers 6,000 years "pretty old."
Fifteen months later, another high-profile, far-right politician was asked the identical question, and once again the answer was pretty interesting. In this case, it was GQ's Michael Hainey who asked Sen. Marco Rubio (R), "How old do you think the Earth is?" Here's how the senator 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."
I think I like Perry's answer better.
To be sure, I don't seriously expect Rubio to immediately cite the commonly accepted scientific figure -- the planet is 4.54 billion years old -- from memory. Sure, Rubio is a member of the Senate Science Committee, and is on the subcommittee that deals specifically with science and space, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the age of the Earth is one of those details that doesn't come up often.
But it was the rest of Rubio's answer that gives me pause.
The point of the question, of course, is to understand whether Rubio is a creationist who rejects the entirety of the scientific canon and believes the planet is only 6,000 years old. As the senator's national ambitions take shape, he'll probably need to answer the question directly at some point.
But note the way in which Rubio thinks the issue through -- he's "not a scientist"; theologians disagree; so he's not "qualified" to answer. The senator is comfortable, though, concluding that the age of the planet is "one of the great mysteries."
Except, of course, it's not. A "dispute amongst theologians" or not, science offers extremely reliable information that answers the question quite well.
I'll gladly concede that when it comes to politicians and candidates for high office, there are pressing policy issues that matter far more than the age of Earth. But the reason to take note of exchanges like these is that they offer insights as to how politicians evaluate information and process facts.
Does it matter that Marco Rubio doesn't know the planet is 4.54 billion years old? No. But it does matter whether the senator values science, whether he takes the notion of epistemology seriously, and whether he reconsiders old assumptions based on new information.
Leave a Comment:
Asking Republicans questions like this must be fun! Get ready for an amazing series of cop-outs on anything related to science or religion. Let the pandering begin...
If indeed Rubio holds a Bachelor's degree from a secular university, he otta be forced to give it back! -Kevo
What does a "dispute among theologians" have to do with the determination of scientific fact?
There is only one way this is going to end and that is when this collection of fools, con artists, idiots and traitors gets the treatment Rome gave Carthage.
"I'm not a scientist, man...." And there in lies the problem. There are too few engineers and scientist in elected positions. It is mostly lawyers who are trained to work with emotions and not facts.
Rubio is nuts- Respect for the rigor of science has everything to do with GDP. The deduction about the age of Earth has to do with the decay rates of isotopes like Iron-60 which can only be created in reactors or the centers of collapsing suns. If we think that somehow there are exceptions for scientific law- that somehow Iron-60 decays at an exact rate but not on Sundays, then the basis for our highly technological economy is undermined.
BTW- there are plenty of Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Christians who aren't "lapsed" or borderline agnostic who believe there is no contradiction between science and religious writings like the Bible, Torah, Gita and Koran.** Pope Pious (the leader of one particular not insignificant denomination) said as much in 1950.
BTW2- the 4.5 million age has to do with the age of those isotopes, not necessarily the age of the earth. They may be close, but not necessarily. One dominant theory is that the solar system began to coalesce from a molecular cloud due to the explosion or explosions of nearby supernovas- which created the heavy elements like iron needed for our hemoglobin. On the other hand, some theorists think that the coalescing took more time. It can't have been too much longer though because of other sources of evidence- such as the geologic record. For example it is widely accepted that there is sufficient evidence from stromatolites that there has been microscopic life on earth dating back at least 2.5 billion years. Some stromatolites push the date to 3.5 billion years, but those studies are more controversial.
** I happen to be one of them, considering myself a devout Christian.
oops. "the 4.5
millionbillion age has to do..."The age of the visible universe is about 13.75 billion years, and this estimate is judged from cooling times and working backwards from the observed velocity of the expanding universe. It would take 13.75 billion years for everything to be back at the same location.
There are many theories that other big bangs occur in locations outside of our observation limits. Such hypotheses are not testable so are more in the realm of philosophic speculation than a matter for science. But it may well be that this wider universe is infinite in time and space implying that the infinitesimal chance that a blob of protoplasm exactly resembling Rubio would evolve exactly as he did and say exactly the nonsense he said- has already occurred in the past.
An infinite number of times.
Some might take that as sufficient proof the existence at least of an eternal Hell.
This quote:
"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."
is scary, especially coming from someone on a science committee. Attitudes like this have helped make this country as far behind the rest of the world in science education as we are. If the religious right has their way religious dogma will be able to be taught as equivalent to science, and that is already the case in many areas. As long as this is allowed our children will grow up unable to think logically and to do any scientific research. Once you believe that all the answers to questions come from a 2000 year old book there is no need to look any further.
The age of the Earth, as others have rightfully mentioned, is NOT one of the great mysteries. There are well known and validated methods to estimate this. What is a mystery is how anybody who claims to be intelligent can believe that stories from a 2000 year old book represent the best explanation for any phenomena. We need to STOP accepting the argument that science and religion are somehow on an equal playing field and that both should be given equal attention in science class. Teaching religious dogma is NOT equivalent to teaching alternative theories regarding some scientific phenomena.
I am a devout Catholic and suggest the writings of Jesuit theologian, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin are worth reading. In The Phenomenon of Man, Chardin makes his scientific case for evolution. I have never believed that science would contradict the Bible. I don't believe it does.
You cannot, however, take the Bible verbatim as being the Scientific Truth. It was never meant to be a scientific document.
We were taught in Anthropology that the earth is probably around 5 Billion years old. (As I recall). It's been a while! It certainly isn't six thousand years old! I've studied homo sapiens older than that! The fossil record contradicts that quite clearly.
Some fictions are necessary.
Take free will for example. Scientifically speaking, it does not exist. It is an epiphenomenon- that is it is, an secondary effect. Only physical phenomena can cause other physical phenomena.
Yet it would be a disaster for society if we did not believe that we are in charge of our lives.
Craig- In the philosophy of science, Karl Popper introduced a useful distinction. A scientific hypothesis is one that is falsifiable- that is one that makes predictions that can be independently tested. Some theoretical physicists for example do not regard string theory as science because it makes (they claim) no testable predictions. Anyway, the creationist "theory" is not a scientific hypothesis because it makes no falsifiable predictions.
What progressives need to understand is that there are many on the religious right who do agree with science. For example, I regard Pope JP II's stands on abortion to be extremely right wing, but on evolution he made some important statements, including a strengthening of Pius's statements. JP II stated in 1996 that evolution was "more than a theory" due to the massive amount of independent corroborative evidence.
What is more alarming is the Santorum reactionary idea that upper education is dangerous for conservatism because high levels of education tend to make the electorate more liberal. This is a very old line of thought- tracing back to the resistance among the privileged classes to programs for universal literacy. If the people could read for themselves, the rabble might come across some strange ideas.
And then where would we be.
The earth may be round. Theologians disagree but I'm not a scientists...I don't know about things like gravity but that has nothing to do with the GNP.
Being a cowardly phony does. Teaching creationism in schools or allowing it to be taught..hmm. The GOP will put anyone on the science committee huh. I'm so sick of people pushing beliefs and fantasy as fact. He made a simple question with a simple answer into a complicated issue because he's afraid of upsetting the ignorant and delusional. He proves he is a phony without strength of character...which is a person not to be trusted.
India- our posts crossed, and mine was largely in response to craig's regarding theories.
2.5 million years ago, there were humans chipping stones, and about a million years later mastering fire, and constructing tools to hunt prey and forage for food. So if you ran into this creature Habilius (the one that Mary Leakey discovered)- they could teach you how to make stone tools using what is theorized to be a primitive protolanguage of non descriptive command verbs and nouns, using gestures and sounds. It is speculated that Homo erectus, who came a million years was capable of a more robust symbolic language.
They could show you how to survive in the wild- how to track animals, build huts, and construct elaborate weapons that could kill large animals. It has been shown that people can possess normal IQ with a brain no larger than erectus's, so this provokes a question.
Would we perceive humanity in the actions of these earlier versions of us? Perhaps this question of humanity has less to do with our cleverness for technology, than our ability to care and empathize with the feelings of others- for example the evidence of elderly hominids with healed severe skull factures- something highly unlikely without some for of social health care.
Earliest forms of humanity? Probably Homo erectus. As for Homo republicanus, there remain persistent doubts.
"I'm not a scientist man, nor a legislator per se, but I play one on television!"
-Marco Boobio
"I'm not a scientist, man." Well no shyte, Sherlock.
You would think the Senate would try to put people with some scientific understanding on the Senate Science Committee. or is Rubio the token "science idiot" on the panel?
John Messerly, #1.10, Thank you for the excellent and informative response. As usual, I find your comments most thoughtful and concise.
The Leakys were excellent anthropologists. You are correct on Homo Habilus as well as Homo Republicanus. LOL
There is, (again, as I recall), evidence to suggest that Neanderthal man had a strong spirituality and humanity. They buried their dead with flowers and ceremonies.
Perhaps you can help me remember who discovered "Lucy", (Australopithecus Afarensis)? I no longer have my college textbooks in my library. I suppose I could look it up on the internet. I want to say she was one of the oldest discoveries.
Pope John Paul II was a brilliant man and wrote some amazing books, as well. He was a great man. I converted to Catholicism while he was Pope.
Maybe one day on the planet Q'Lob is 1 million earth years long, so it could have been created in six days, just not six earth days.
Come on, I'm really trying. Work with me, here.
John Messerly, I take it you like Paul Tillich. He's another great theologian.
I am familiar with Popper's conception of scientific inquiry and have read at least the English translation of two of his books. I have also read Berger and Luchman's "The social Construction of Reality" and Herb Simon's "The sciences of the Artificial." I understand that most of the concepts that people accept as religious "truths" are socially constructed and would never meet any reasonable definition of scientific inquiry.
You are correct that religious concepts, such as creationism, cannot be scientific because they cannot be falsified, although you will find some philosophers of science who use a different definition primarily to try to get around this problem and allow their dogma to be accepted as science.
Religion IS the problem. Whenever you have someone saying that they know all the answers because they have faith that certain things are true, even though those things are inconsistent with empirical evidence, there is a problem. Nothing anybody else says will convince them of the falsehoods in their beliefs, even if presented with clear evidence of there falsehood. This is where we are today in this country. There is a belief that anything can be decided by majority rule, even scientific truths.
Steven Satx
You would think the Senate would try to put people with some scientific understanding on the Senate Science Committee. or is Rubio the token "science idiot" on the panel?
Nope. Akin's there too. And Bachmann's on the intelligence committee.
I think it's the Republican's sense of humor.
Tillichian Christian gets people closest to my territory. I have some differences with him none of which are especially visible at the 30,000 foot level unless you are interested in theology, existentialism or German idealism.
Paleoanthropology keeps moving along at a brisk clip. Much of what I knew in university is simplistic compared to current knowledge.
Regarding neanderthal, the most mind blowing breakthrough has been the complete sequencing of DNA. It seems like a miracle that this is even possible. Anyway, the question of admixture is no longer an unprovable speculation. Most Europeans have something like 5% Neanderthal DNA.
Regarading Lucy. In 2009 a fairly complete skeleton from an even earlier hominin genus was discovered predating Lucy by a million years. This female was named Ardi and was a fairly primitive creature with brain size comparable to that of a chimpanzee, but exhibits first hominin features diverging from chimps such as a foot suited not for grasping but for bipedalism.
So the way this story currently goes, there are three main phases in the steps from which our common ancestor with the chimpanzees diverged 6 million years ago and wound up with our own.
Most Australopithecines were no more adept at tools than apes, but Tim White discovered with Aus. garhi fossils dating to 2.6million years some stone tools comparable to the Oldawan technology tools that Homo habilis made.
It's important to note that some of these different early humans lived at times overlapping more primitive types. H. Erectus died out 300K years ago, but the proto Neanderthals probably ran into them, having showed up 600K years ago.
OMG, John, you do your homework!! Thank you so much. I can tell that you attended college must later than I did! You really kept up with Anthropology. I confess I did not as my interest in theology and politics took over. You would think those would be antithetical pursuits of interest! LOL I find them both fascinating.
You are a virtual walking encyclopedia. I really enjoy your posts. Thanks again.
Craig- There is quite a variety of spiritual experience outside of what Americans commonly refer to when they use the word religion. If you said that fundamentalism is a serious problem, or that literalistic interpretation is a serious cognitive and political problem, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But if your intended sense is similar to that of Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins- that having a connection with one's spirtuality presents some necessary social or political problems, then on that subject we share little common ground.
India, I am somewhat obsessed by this particular subject- recent evolution. I left my hippie college (Evergreen State College)- in 1980, when the frontier was H. Habilis.
Tim White, a co discoverer of Lucy was on NPR's Science Friday a few years ago and gave a pretty good outline of the current thinking. I wasn't even aware of ardipithecus at that point.
Wikipedia has some good citations to publically available articles on these different hominin species.
John, Well! I am not familiar with Evergreen "hippie" college! LOL
In 1980 I was in the Yucatan, studying the Maya ruins. In fact, it was my birthday, today, 11-20 and we all celebrated it in Merida! (But in 1980!)
Oh boy, I don't want to think about how long ago that was! I do, however, have grand-kids to remind me! LOL
I disagree that it doesn't matter that Marc Rubio doesn't know the planets age. To be able to make reliable economic and social judgements one must have a fundamental (high school) understanding of science including geology, biology, chemistry, physics, math, medicine, climate, etc. And to know how to get more in depth information from the experts. To accept one's own ignorance as a policy maker is dangerous for everybody.
That's Sen. Marco - always putting the "Rube" in Rubio!
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
Dangerous, yes, but then it explains why our educational system - especially when it comes to "math & science" are abysmal. We have politicians on these committees that (are too busy pandering for votes) are either a) idiots when it comes to learning, b) don't want to give real answers because their xtian followers won't vote for them, or c) so theocratic in their "beliefs" that they don't want to tick off the non-religuluous in order to get their votes!
Frankly I think we need to start having "religuluous" tests for office, because the dumbed down theocratic politicians should be weeded out. See, while I get that people have a "faith" filled opinion with which they use to filter their own lives through, but I'm having a problem with these people and their filter as they are making decisions for US with these dumbed down simplistic sound-bites which lets in no facts!
" I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States" is probably the most worrisome sentence in his whole utterance. Half the country is raising kids to denigrate science, and that is not going to hurt our economy? The Chinese must laugh when they read this kind of stuff. Why does Rubio think the Republicans lost the Asian vote so badly? Because people who value education find his kind very dangerous.
Ain't no Scientist, but I did sleep at a Holiday inn express(under the name Mr. Smith)
This sounds like the answer for somebody who's planning on running in 2016.
I suspect that the next edition of Bartlett's Quotations will have "I'm running for president, for Pete's sake!" as the go-to answer for any difficult question asked of a politician.
Day: Rubio may be channeling his inner Dr. McCoy ("I'm a doctor, Jim, not a [insert word here])."
I'm not even convinced by his answer that he believes in the Bible version of Creation. And it may be worse if he doesn't, because then his response indicates a propensity to pander--say whatever will appeal to his supporters--and abandon personal integrity. That unconscionable ability to speak out of both sides of their mouths for personal gain is what makes politicians so odious. Just say what you mean and mean what you say!
Rubio is the next Romney, willing to say anything and pull "facts" out of his rectum at will. Now that the con artists see that 49% of the American people can be convinced that dog kibble is steak, we're going to see many re-runs of the Romney strategy, with each of them thinking "It just needs someone more personable than he was to work."
It is true that there are "old-earth" creationists who try to reconcile Moses and Darwin by interpreting the seven days of Genesis as seven millennia, seven undefined periods of time, or simply as an outline of how the universe evolved. The "old-earth" creationists do claim to believe in the "Bible version of Creation." On the other hand, it seems to me that the "old-earthers" got drummed out of the movement years ago--at least, all one hears from the great Christian Evangelical media machine is "young earth" it-all-happened-in-a-week-ism.
"I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question..." I could not agree more.
"Meet the Flintstones, they're a page right out of history". I wonder if he buried a pig in his back yard last week and is expecting oil by the weekend?
If GOD wanted us wandering STUPID in the dark, we'd be SHEEP, not humans.
"God's Will" is tossed about like meat for a dog, well, who says it's NOT God's Will that we believe in FACTS and SCIENCE?
NO MORE "leaders" that refuse to honor the Constitution, proven facts, and simple common sense!
mindc, how old are you?
"I'm not a historian, man. I can tell you what my birth certificate says, I can tell you what my mother says, I can even tell what I say, but at the end of the day can we really say? I think there are multiple theories out there on when I was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to believe them all.
Whether I'm 15 or 50, or will always be 30, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."
It is becomming increasingly clear, that to be on the science committee you need neither knowlege of, or understanding of, basic science. So I guess this committee exists for the sole purpose of denouncing science and promoting mysticism and idol worshiping. Someone needs to purge the Science Committee of these ignorant buffoons.
As far as I understand the bible doesn't mention how old earth is. The 6000 +/- year figure was based on research (scientific?) of a timeline of estimates when biblical people were born going back to Adam.
I find it amusing that Rubio thinks that children should be taught "what their faith" says in effect supporting the authority of science being in the hands of preachers, not scientists. Personally I don't think Rubio is a qualified theologian to offer such a answer.
The 6,000 year "age" of the earth was created by a French priest in the early 19th century. It was thought of as b.s. by most educated people at the time.
Sorry, I don't think a French priest in the early 19th century came up with the Jewish calender. and, you can actually start at the beginning of the Torah, and list all the begats and dieds and come very, very close --
and all that has NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE
The 6000 year age didn't come in the early 19th from a French Priest but Bishop Ussher in 1650. Ussher was a bishop in the Church of Ireland, an Anglican church; he was not a Catholic. By the 19th century, most scholars dismissed that age as far too young.
Speaking of Catholics, from what I can find, Rubio seems to be a Roman Catholic. If he is, he should consult the Church's teaching on the age of the earth and evolution. (A tidbit: the first proposal for a "Big Bang" was by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest.)
please stop ... this is not a Catholic notion or an Anglican one ...
this is the year 5773
Hebrew calendar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hebrew calendar (הלוח ×”עבר×™ ha'luach ha'ivri), or Jewish calendar, is a lunisolar calendar used today predominantly for Jewish religious observances. It determines the dates for Jewish holidays and the appropriate public reading of Torah portion, yahrzeits (dates to commemorate the death of a relative), and daily Psalm reading, among many ceremonial uses. In Israel, it is an official calendar for civil purposes and provides a time frame for agriculture. The current year of the Jewish calendar (16 September 2012 to 4 September 2013) is 5773.[1]
and Noah lived to be 950 years old and Methuselah 969 years right?
More likely they lived 950 months (79 years for Noah) and 969 months (80.75 years for Methuselah) which were then extremely long lives indeed.
Now which version do you believe? Ancient men lived nearly a thousand years with no healthcare. Or were the definitions of time periods misinterpreted?
This part of his reply bothers me the most.
" 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."
So if a kid goes into a math class and is asked what 2+2 is and they reply 7, then they must be considered correct, if they say that's what their parents taught them and their faith says.
So THAT'S where we've gotten all of the kids who can't give you the correct change.
It's as if their children can't handle the difference between science and belief. I was taught what science had discovered and what the Bible says, and what my parents believed. And was allowed to think it through and come to my own conclusions. Seems like most believers don't believe that their "truths" are self-evident or will lead to their self-same beliefs.
as always, a republican who wants to enjoy the fruits of science but attacks it as soon as it shows his fairy stories to be untrue. Pathetic hypocrites. I do wish they would be forced to live without that science that they have no respect for, in mud huts with no modern foods, medicine, electronics, etc. One can also see that this idiot is one of those who wants to claim his bible isn't quite literal in Genesis(7 "eras" as opposed to days) but wants to pretend a Jewish man was murdered and then magically brought back to life as a sacrifice for other people's failings.
What concerns me is his remark that he believes parents should be able to teach kids what their faith says - as if that is under threat. It's subtle, but when your audience includes a throng of Christians who believe they are being persecuted, believe me, they pick that up loud and clear.
I agree with one sentence: "I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says." Absolutely. If their faith and science disagree, kids should know both answers, and why they're different. I don't even care which answer they believe as long as they know which one to use to solve real-world scientific problems.
Trouble is, parents can already do this. More trouble lurks in the next sentence: "Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that." I don't want anyone who thinks young-earth creationism and day-age creationism are the only possibilities anywhere near science-related policy, to say nothing of my kid's education.
The Republican party for the foreseeable future: pig stupid and proud of it.
I always wonder at the fact that so many abhor Darwin in the classroom but think he is just fine in the marketplace.
!
Touché!
The dude couldn't get his own family history correct when asked about their immigration from Cuba. We have a pretty good suspicion that he knew the correct history just as we have a pretty good suspicion that he likely knows the scientifically accepted age of the earth. Yet we also have a pretty good suspicion that he knows which boxes need to be checked to conform with GOP authoritarianism. In that we have a pretty good suspicion that he is a GOP authoritarian figure who tends all of their ideological fences and gates to their exclusive domain of denialism, the club of the head feint, nope a dope, never to look too long into a mirror for anything deeper than the lay of their hair. As Mike Royko used to say of them -- very clean but stupid.
Yes, we live in a country where you can believe anything you want, and we welcome a diversity of viewpoints. You can debate Coke vs. Pepsi, Mustang vs. Camaro, and have viewpoints on just about anything, because there is no 100% right answer on those questions. However, that is NOT how science and math work. You can decide to believe that the Earth is flat, the Sun is a burning lump of coal, and that there is no such thing as evolution, but opinion is NOT science. There is a "right" answer, at least one that scientists accept based on known data. If creationists want to say the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that all the forms of life we see today were created instanteously, then they should prove it, just as scientists have done with their theories. You want to teach creationism in schools because you as a taxpayer are supporting the schools? Fine, as long as we can also teach real science and math in church. After all, we support those religious institutions by giving them tax-exempt status.
When asked about sex education, Rubio said, "I'm not an obstetricain, and I've heard several theories on where babies come from -- some involving cabbage leaves and others long-legged, long necked wading birds. I don't think we'll ever be able to answer that. Parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says (as long as the parents' faith is the same as mine, of course)."
Uffdaguy's right - crackpot theories should not be given the same weight as provable science.
So basically Rubio's answer:
Q: How old is Earth?
A: Earth is old enough for our economy to be in bad shape
Marco Rubio, the next Romney - with even less intelligence, skill or ability. What a buffoon, and the fact that this fool is taken seriously by anyone about anything is proof our politics are not only broken but smashed.
Republicans and Science in one sentence? Oh HELL HO that is just asking for the crazy. The day in which a republican agrees with science in the day when the Earth dies of Climate change/global warming.
I attended Catholic school for 16 years and can't understand where all this nonsense comes from. In theology class, I was taught God created man by breathing a soul into him. The only thing we have for a timeline is the Bible, the first recorded history. I was also taught the Bible can not be read literally. People writing it did not have the same concept of time.
I was also taught by the good brothers in science that the earth was formed billions of years ago, and evolution is not contrary to Catholic belief. All people, including politicians, should be guided by science in forming policy for the nation, not personal beliefs. Take abortion, for example. Policy should be formed around when science says life is viable outside the womb, not personal opinion. Viability determines when abortion is murder.
Folks, let's not kid ourselves - Mark Rubio knows the correct answer to this question. The real problem is he's a member of a party in which confirming the validity of scientific evolution constitutes political suicide.
No. He does not know the correct answer.
He will not permit himself to learn the right answer.
Ask him the same question every week for the next year, and you'll get 52 of the same answer, pretending to be uncurious, terrified of crossing party orthodoxy.
Scientism is a PhiloSophy; David Hume did not disprove SuperNatural Activity, but defined it to be totally outside of this Universe.
Dr. Richard Lewontin, when he was a Professor of Biology at Harvard Univ.,
wrote, "Our ~a priori~ [prior] commitment to naturalistic Explanations is absolute. ... We cannot allow a divine Foot in the Door"
(--The New York Review of Books, Jan. 4 [or 9th?], 1997, in the Article titled, "Millions & Millions of Demons," which is a Review of a Book which was written by AstroNomer Dr. Carl Sagan).
No one has observed the generation of a new Species of an Animal or Plant. — Yes, a Bacterium changed somewhat. — A Creationist denies that DNA contains enough information to transmute into a new Kind of Being
(-Dr. Stephen C. Meyer at The Discovery Institute, as heard on the Radio, i.e. KBRT-AM 740/ www.kbrt740.com).
. . . . . . . .
RadioMetric Rock-Dating is dubious (apparently), since Igneous Rock of recent vintage (>~ 1800 A.D./ C.E., in Hawaii) has been dated radio-metrically to be 2 - 3 million years old
(--Bob Dutko, late from Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, via the Radio Station which is owned by the Crawford Broadcasting Co.; www.CrawfordBroadcasting.com).
What concerns me is the claim that science has nothing to do with the economy ... not the science of the economy, but the impact of things known from science on the reality-based community most of us live in. This is not his faith in G-d talking, this is his faith in GOP economic hoohah.
Climate change, anyone?