Marco Rubio doesn't know how old the Earth is

[Unabogie]

Actually, I don't how we should know that. The quote can be explained as not pissing off the base of the party he belongs to. His entry at wikipedia says he Roman Catholic, briefly went briefly to an LDS church, and makes no mention of creationism. A quick google doesn't turn up anything beyond this about him being connected with creationism.

So how should we know that's what he meant?

Only because we can combine two pieces of data.

1. There is no restriction on parents teaching their kids what they want and no movement to create those restrictions.
2. "Teach the controversy" is the slogan of the loony creationists in their desire to teach religion as science.

Since there's no reason to accept his statement as relating to data 1, then we can only assume data 2, unless you can suggest a third possibility. But since I've lived in America for longer than ten minutes, I'm very familiar with the slogans of the various factions and I can recognize their catch phrases when I hear them.

 

[respect]

Only because we can combine two pieces of data.

1. There is no restriction on parents teaching their kids what they want and no movement to create those restrictions.
2. "Teach the controversy" is the slogan of the loony creationists in their desire to teach religion as science.

Since there's no reason to accept his statement as relating to data 1, then we can only assume data 2, unless you can suggest a third possibility. But since I've lived in America for longer than ten minutes, I'm very familiar with the slogans of the various factions and I can recognize their catch phrases when I hear them.

You have already been given a third possibility, his vague wording can be interpreted as him being on the side of creationists without him explicitly siding with them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Only because we can combine two pieces of data.

1. There is no restriction on parents teaching their kids what they want and no movement to create those restrictions.
2. "Teach the controversy" is the slogan of the loony creationists in their desire to teach religion as science.

Since there's no reason to accept his statement as relating to data 1, then we can only assume data 2, unless you can suggest a third possibility. But since I've lived in America for longer than ten minutes, I'm very familiar with the slogans of the various factions and I can recognize their catch phrases when I hear them.

I already suggested a third possiblity (in the post you're replying to). And where did Rubio use the phrase "teach the controversy"? I only see that in your posts in this thread and can't link that phrase to Rubio via google.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, I don't how we should know that. The quote can be explained as not pissing off the base of the party he belongs to. His entry at wikipedia says he Roman Catholic, briefly went briefly to an LDS church, and makes no mention of creationism. A quick google doesn't turn up anything beyond this about him being connected with creationism.

So how should we know that's what he meant?

It's not always easy to be a politician particularly when it comes to telling the truth. That said, "I'm not a scientist" is about as pathetic as it gets when it comes to rhetoric. It probably won't hurt Rubio but it damn well ought to.

 

[RandFan]

"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."

-Senator Barack Obama, 13 April 2008

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.html

Damnable. Sorry Barack, it's not a legitimate debate.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It's not always easy to be a politician particularly when it comes to telling the truth. That said, "I'm not a scientist" is about as pathetic as it gets when it comes to rhetoric. It probably won't hurt Rubio but it damn well ought to.

I certainly agree with all that especially it's really true that he doesn't even know what science has to say about the age of the Earth. But that doesn't necessarily put him in the "teach the controversy" crowd. It could (likely I'd say at this point) mean that he's just pandering to them.

 

[RandFan]

I certainly agree with all that especially it's really true that he doesn't even know what science has to say about the age of the Earth. But that doesn't necessarily put him in the "teach the controversy" crowd. It could (likely I'd say at this point) mean that he's just pandering to them.

I agree with that.

 

[respect]

It's not always easy to be a politician particularly when it comes to telling the truth. That said, "I'm not a scientist" is about as pathetic as it gets when it comes to rhetoric. It probably won't hurt Rubio but it damn well ought to.

Expect more of it as Republicans try to distance themselves from some of the more divisive positions of their Christian conservative base without royally pissing them off.

 

[fishbob]

I suspect his vague wording was intentional, he doesn't really take a firm position on anything.

We've seen quite recently how well that works.
Seems Rubio is a slow learner.

 

[AlBell]

BTW: I was a loyal Republican for years. I know what it's like to be dealt such a lousy hand. Buck up it's only going to get worse. The trend for enlightenment is going primarily in one direction and it's against stupid superstitious nonsense that beggars belief.

• Light from the most distant known galaxy took 13.3 billion years to get to Earth.

That's a fact. You don't need to be a scientist to understand how we know that to be true. You do need to be either A.) a giant douche bag to pretend that you don't know that it is true. B.) willfully ignorant.

I agree Rubio danced around the question, yet why should he know 13.x billion yrs is the correct scientific answer?

 

[thaiboxerken]

That word doesn't mean what you think it means:

Oh, I know what it means. rw's usage of strange math to support the position that there is equivalency on this issue between the Right and the Left is very much like numerology.

 

[RandFan]

I agree Rubio danced around the question, yet why should he know 13.x billion yrs is the correct scientific answer?

I'll concede that much.

 

[Ausmerican]

I agree Rubio danced around the question, yet why should he know 13.x billion yrs is the correct scientific answer?

He shouldn't cos the correct answer is 4.5.
(He was asked the age of the Earth, not the universe.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Agreed: Classic example of a Politician avoiding a controvesial issue whilt trying to look like he is not avoiding a controvesial issue.

I understand your point, but the fact is that the age of the Earth is not a controversial issue. His pandering to those who claim there is such a controversy is despicable.

 

[I Ratant]

That was in 2008, when those who fessed up to their Creationism were (IIRC) Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee. Of course, that was before the advent of the TEA Party; I wonder how many would have raised their hands if they knew they had that rabid nuthouse to pander to.

.
Heh, heh, you said "TEA party"...

 

[rwguinn]

That word doesn't mean what you think it means:

Some people can't help themselves, and refuse to face reality.
I wasn't saying it was the way that happened, but I was saying that it is pretty silly (if not stupid) to use percentages to prove a point without declaring the sample size...

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It'll be nice when politicians don't pander to such idiotic beliefs. When the superstitious are pandered to, it makes them believe that their superstitions are legitimate.

Politicians. I'm positive your expression of disdain is sincere. Sincerely.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Denial - you gotta love it. I know you don't want to believe your beloved Republican party is the primary home of the religious, but it is. Look at the demographics of the recent elections, both local, state and national. Look at the legislation presented by the Republicans, local, state especially. Look at the publications and media of the major religious leaders.

You are welcome to find excuses, blame "gotchya" questions, the liberal media. You can try and invoke the fallacy of equivalence, whatever you like. It doesn't change reality.

Bertrand Russell called Marxism a religion. State-worshippers are just as religious as are Jehovah's Witnesses. Gaia worshippers are just as religious as are Wahabis.

 

[Tricky]

Bertrand Russell called Marxism a religion. State-worshippers are just as religious as are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Yes, and Jedi Knight called washing your car regularly a religion. Lots of people misuse the word to mean "something that you do because you are fanatical about it". That doesn't make Bertrand Russell correct, other than in the most general sense. Religions involve deities. A political system (unless it is a theocracy) is not a religion, no matter how fanatical you are about it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Does Obama advocate "teaching the controversy" like the Republicans do? If not, then your equivalence is a false one.

Bertrand Russell did. He protested indoctriation that would lead to rejection of flat Earth arguments without the ability to weigh the arguments for and against. Sounds like "teach the controversy" to me.