I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Want evidence of why the GOP has trouble appealing to younger and more secular voters? Part of the reason is that our candidates feel like they have to give answers like this one:
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: 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.
Yes, Rubio probably needs to answer that way to get through the Iowa caucuses, and that's the problem. I wish the people that determine our presidential (and Senate) nominees would be perfectly happy for him to have answered simply, "A few billion years."
(I'm giving Rubio the benefit of the doubt in assuming he doesn't think the world is 6,000 years old. He does sit on the Science and Space subcommittee, after all.)
- Comment (219)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (11)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
How did you establish this fact? Link, please?
Mar '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
I'm concerned that we have to take the readership who takes GQ seriously seriously.
Aug '10
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Glenn the Iconoclast
Kevin Walker
I happen to agree strongly. You can ignore this view, at your peril.
Much better with the edit. · 0 minutes ago
Thanks. I am a Christian and was trained as a geologist, and as much as I love to talk about the age of the earth, I don't really think that was the conversation Matt intended to start. This is a serious element of the debate on the future of conservatism as we regroup over the next couple of years.
My feeling is that conservative politicians can talk about religious freedom, about abortion as a moral question, and about traditional values from a public policy perspective, without wading into theology, which turns off a substantial portion of the electorate.
Aug '10
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Ryan M
Kevin Walker
Can't a secular politician be attractive to people of faith simply by being pro-religious-freedom?
That is not what concerns me. It concerns me that Christian politicians are automatically disqualified because of their faith. Could I phrase that the other way? "Can't a Christian politician be attractive to people not-of-faith simply by being pro religious (or nonreligious) freedom?"
And why not? · 9 minutes ago
Yes, Christian politicians should and can be attractive to secular folks. That's consistent with my point. Despite his loss, I think Romney did a good job of focusing on fiscal matters and leaving aside theology.
Jan '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Unless I've missed something, no one has said a single word against Christianity on this thread -- I certainly haven't -- only against a particular belief held by some Christains that is demonstrably incorrect.That said, I will apologize for calling Young Earth Creationists and Rubio "fools"; their foolish belief in this particular doesn't mean they aren't wise in many other things.
Apr '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Kevin Walker
Thanks. I am a Christian and was trained as a geologist, and as much as I love to talk about the age of the earth, [1]I don't really think that was the conversation Matt intended to start. This is a serious element of the debate on the future of conservatism as we regroup over the next couple of years.
[2]My feeling is that conservative politicians can talk about religious freedom, about abortion as a moral question, and about traditional values from a public policy perspective, without wading into theology, which turns off a substantial portion of the electorate.
1. Probably not, but this is Ricochet, and conversations listeth where they will.
2. Well, what's the number? Is it 15%? (I choose that number as the people who said Sandy was their #1 issue, and it's the number (roughly) of people who believe in evolution alone to account for life.) I don't want to alienate 15% of the electorate automatically, but how much of that 15% will I get anyway? Is it going to be determinative?
Apr '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Ryan M
Here is the problem. Evolution is like global warming, only worse. The people who really know what they are talking about will eventually admit where they are making giant leaps. They accept these leaps because they have ruled out the alternative as impossible. I do not accept those leaps. The people who tell me to shut up and stop asking questions are ones who have no answers to those questions except "somebody knows, why not trust them?"
Evolution does nothave an actual answer. There is a wide field that shows some very interesting things, but the bulk of what it shows are things that Christians would not dispute. Those are also not the things that anti-Christians - and yes, that's what they are, even on this site - are talking about. · 53 minutes ago
Evolution is not a question. Evolution is an answer to a question. You can choose to give a different answer to the question of the origin of species other than evolution, but giving the answer of Evolution does not qualify you as anti-christian. The fact that you view it as such plays into the fallacy of Richard Dawkins.
(Continued)
May '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
No, I agree that believing in evolution does not necessarily make you anti Christian, but that was not my claim.
Apr '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Furthermore the notion that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is a clear disputation of the geological, and astronomical facts and calculations. These people choose to toss out the window 200 years of observation and reasoning because of their interpretation of five chapters, of one book, of one translation, of the bible. That fact that people should look at them with incredulity should not come as a shock.
I think it fair to demand more evidence from any scientist about their particular theories, so long as you specify what that evidence should be. I for instance want validation of the climate models with future observations. The model predicts X temperature in 2020 I want to see if you achieve X temperature in 2020. If you do I will think your model is good. If you are way off I will think your model is bad. Simple.
May '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Wonderful! It is comforting to know that I am only 1/2 a fool. Or, as a creationist who doesn't necessarily believe in young-earth, am I 1/4 fool? I suppose, then, that I might reply by suggesting that your belief in evolution is rather foolish, and mine in creation is not. But where does that get us? Intelligent conversation, or a couple of dimwits calling each other fools?
Jan '12
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Ryan M
Wonderful! It is comforting to know that I am only 1/2 a fool. Or, as a creationist who doesn't necessarily believe in young-earth, am I 1/4 fool? I suppose, then, that I might reply by suggesting that your belief in evolution is rather foolish, and mine in creation is not. But where does that get us? Intelligent conversation, or a couple of dimwits calling each other fools? · 3 minutes ago
It will get you marginalized in a country that lives in a technical abundance brought about by science and scientists devoted to a viewpoint diametrically opposed to yours. It gets you a lot of lost elections, a lot of sneering, and a lost generation who never hear other conservative arguments because they take one look at "religious fanaticism" (their words, not mine) and dismiss us all as the Christian version of the Taliban.
Jan '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Ryan M
Wonderful! It is comforting to know that I am only 1/2 a fool. Or, as a creationist who doesn't necessarily believe in young-earth, am I 1/4 fool? I suppose, then, that I might reply by suggesting that your belief in evolution is rather foolish, and mine in creation is not. But where does that get us? Intelligent conversation, or a couple of dimwits calling each other fools?
Ryan, I made a substantive and polite argument at #89* and then posted a link to the Douthat post at #91. In the interests of intelligent conversation, care to respond?
* I originally said 87. Darn iPhones.
Edited on November 21, 2012 at 4:50amMay '10
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Ryan M
Valiuth
If you don't know you can say "I don't know". The thing though about your example is that there is in fact a real answer to your hypothetical. You may not know the answer but some one actually does. Why doubt them? · 49 minutes ago
Those are also not the things that anti-Christians - and yes, that's what they are, even on this site - are talking about. · 2 hours ago
PLEASE stop conflating Christians and creationists. All creationists may be Christian, but all Christians are not creationist.
Apr '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Trace
Ryan M
Valiuth
If you don't know you can say "I don't know". The thing though about your example is that there is in fact a real answer to your hypothetical. You may not know the answer but some one actually does. Why doubt them? · 49 minutes ago
Those are also not the things that anti-Christians - and yes, that's what they are, even on this site - are talking about. · 2 hours ago
PLEASEstop conflating Christians and creationists. All creationists may be Christian, but all Christians are not creationist. · 6 minutes ago
Creationist conflate themselves, there is nothing to be done about it, no matter how annoying it is.
Oct '12
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Kevin Walker
. . . as well as iDad's comment that laments the existence of the post at all. Again, here is Matt's central point: "Want evidence of why the GOP has trouble appealing to younger and more secular voters? Part of the reason is that our candidates feel like they have to give answers like this one." I happen to agree strongly. You can ignore this view, at your peril. But it is something that conservatives will have to come to terms with.
What I lament is seeing someone do the left's bidding by rushing to denounce a relatively benign statement as beyond the pale. Doing so just provides cover for liberals to attack Rubio ("Even conservatives were quick to denounce Rubio's statement ...")? You don't see this intellectual cannibalism on the left. We need to stop playing their game.
I expect to hear "we're better than that and hold ourselves to a higher standard." I suggest that anyone who says that go to proteinwisdom.com and read Jeff Goldstein's posts on the inevitable effects of ceding control of the dialogue to the left.
May '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Trace
Ryan M
Valiuth
If you don't know you can say "I don't know". The thing though about your example is that there is in fact a real answer to your hypothetical. You may not know the answer but some one actually does. Why doubt them? · 49 minutes ago
Those are also not the things that anti-Christians - and yes, that's what they are, even on this site - are talking about. · 2 hours ago
PLEASEstop conflating Christians and creationists. All creationists may be Christian, but all Christians are not creationist. · 22 minutes ago
Hang on a tick ... by Creationist, you mean those who believe that God created humans? Are we back to debating the definition of Christian, then? Any person denying creation will have a pretty difficult time, theologically. That said, I do not believe in "young earth." I think that is actually something that is pretty well established. I am not similarly convinced regarding macro-evolution.
May '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Tom Meyer
Ryan M
Wonderful! It is comforting to know that I am only 1/2 a fool. Or, as a creationist who doesn't necessarily believe in young-earth, am I 1/4 fool? I suppose, then, that I might reply by suggesting that your belief in evolution is rather foolish, and mine in creation is not. But where does that get us? Intelligent conversation, or a couple of dimwits calling each other fools?
Ryan, I made a substantive and polite argument at #87 and then posted a link to the Douthat post at #91. In the interests of intelligent conversation, care to respond? · 38 minutes ago
Yes, sir. I will briefly review. For a bit more in-depth argument on evolution, see this old post. I was going to ask Mollie about putting it back on the member feed, just for the sake of conversation, but I don't know if that's possible.
Nov '12
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
bereket kelile
The assumptions I was referring to concern how much of the material was there to begin with and whether the decay rate is constant. That assumes a closed system. I don't have any alternative assumptions.
Non-constancy of decay rate would point to a fundamental flaw in our current understanding of quantum mechanics.
May '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Tom Meyer
Barfly
I don't know which would be worse - that Marco was being careful not to offend those who take myth for reality, or that he is a such a person himself. To ignore physical measure and to project one's myths onto reality is great arrogance.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Rubio is either a fool himself, or a panderer of fools. · 7 hours ago
Edited 6 hours ago
Tom, I hope you're not talking about this post (I thought you said #87, which was not you, but this is #88) ... because it is, um... I'm sorry, but this comment is - what better word for it than your own? - foolish.
May '11
Re: I Wish Our Candidates Didn't Feel Like They Had to Give Answers Like This
Tom Meyer
Evolution is testable and has been quite successfully tested.
When Neil Shubin and his colleagues decided to try to find transitional fossils between fish and quadrupeds, they estimated the age at which such creatures would have developed, located rocks of that age in Arctic Canada, starting digging, and -- lo-and-behold! -- they discovered Tiktaalik!
Evolutionary science has made a tremendous number of similar discoveries; creation science hasn't. · 7 hours ago
Presumably #89.... and this really isn't all that persuasive. Let me put it this way. You begin reasoning backwards, from conclusion to evidence, and it is pretty easy to find something that fits the mold. This is a phenomenon that I encounter w/ my clients (criminal defendants) rather often. More often than not, there is a better explanation, but when you reason backwards, you don't ever explore that, you just keep trying to find things to fit your preconceived conclusion. Funny that this is what evolutionists always accuse Christians of doing, but I think it is far more common the other way around. Take your fish, for example. The fossil is about as complete as a pig's tooth ... and I will be the (cont...)