 |
|
|
|
November 19th, 2012
04:19 PM ET
Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationismBy 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. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter 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. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories 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. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
The mysteries is why he didn't take science in grade school.
Sounds like he took lesson from the Mittster on how to not commit or answer.
Problem with politics is there is no middle ground as far a parties go. It's too black and white. Why can't we find politicians that are more realistic representations of the composition of the U.S. I am a registered Republican but I disagree almost entirely on their social agenda and I hate the Democrat's fiscal agenda. When it comes to voting though I tend to give more weight to fiscal issues rather than social. I figure the social issues will resolve themselves quickly if enough people lean that direction but fiscal issues takes decades to overcome. I truly hate the religious stances of the Repubs but most of those issues are resolved at the state level anyway. I have to mention that I live in Mississippi so I'm surrounded by religious idiots every day. It's a tough battle just knowing I'm getting "Stupider" every day listening to the Zealots. Go Science!!!!
i'm with you on this one rix.
I feel your pain, but nice post.... you made some good points and by the way I'm a tree hunging Democrat!
@Helpful:
He is a test for your belief: Go find a rock (any rock will do). Take this rock home, put it on a table and pray to your deity to make this rock move. If it works, then I will treat with you. However you cannot use this fallacy known as special pleading. – "God moves in mysterious ways." "The lord reveals knowledge to the ignorant that he hides from the wise." or argumentum ad ignorantium – "appeal to ignorance;" whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
Give it a shot, of course if you truly believe, you could stand in front of a moving truck….what flowers would you like? Please don’t hide behind words written by men “Don’t temp your lord god, because in reality you fear the unknown, your belief is no stronger than your fear. Nice try…
Stephen F Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Why? If you believe that God created the world, under normal conditions the world still has to operate according to some rule such as the laws of physics. The rock was not created with the potential of being moved by internal forces. We can readily verify that (to the best of our ability) through experimentation. The fact that God will presumably not move it on command tells us nothing for or against God.
#JF read each fallacy, as it appears to fail to understand them..then repost your argument. "argumentum ad ignorantium – "appeal to ignorance".
@JF – But isn't that what a miracle is? The violation of natural law by an outside agency?
You're assuming that we know or at least -can- see the full extent of ways in which God might have agency. You have to pursue the argument to its end: that if not the rock, then in order to exist God would have to act on *something* that we can produce. That is not a justifiable assumption: not necessarily because of the things to which we don't have access (other planets, for example), which should not be instructive either way; but because the fineness of our understanding of the things that we can observe is limited. Physics has reached a point where we see that "God" does "play dice with the universe," as Einstein was reluctant to admit, and our ability to observe cause and effect thus terminates before we can finish the proof.
"Miracles" could also be chance. And probably should be, if one were trying to come to an understanding that fits within the rest of knowledge.
The larger problem that I have with this type of argument is that the evidentiary issues re: God have been very thoroughly argued out by 2500 years of philosophers, some of whom must have been the most intelligent people ever to occupy the Earth. We're not going to find a neat sophistic trick to bypass them.
"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.'”
I will fully support this on the condition that the Stork Theory be added to obstetrical training in medical schools and the Phlogiston Theory is given equal time with Thermodynamics in physics classrooms.
I'm surprised that Rubio would try to weasel out of a direct answer. He seemed, until now, more forthright than that.
Marco Rubio, "I am not a scientist, Period' is a better answer.... for next time
I wonder what Rubio would have said if he'd been asked how old Mars is?
Goofy, creationists – they keep confusing faith with science. Faith is not predicated on fact, science is. Faith is predicated on beliefs, science is not. I am guressing most of these creationist failed science class.
A former Mormon, practicing Catholic who attends a Baptist church. This guy is certainly trying to cover all the bases.
Yep – his pandering to the religious is pretty blatent.
probably carries a lucky rabbit's foot and checks his horoscope every morning too.
Go ahead Rubio. Pander the the religious right. Romney did. McCain did. What is the definition of insanity? Idiots!!!!!!
Are you saying it's idiotic to win the Republican nomination?
Yes.
This is why Bennett and his GOP friends want to do away with Public Education, so they can mold a new generation of "Right Thinkers".
To play devil's advocate, why would this matter? This field of inquiry is pretty inconsequential.
Rubio is like most Republicans.
A spineless panderer to slow witted Christians and their "bible theories”.
Why couldn't he just answer the question like most reasonable people would:" scientist believe that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old" and leave it a that but like most spineless politicians he had to pander to the religious conservatives who won't believe in any fact that challenges their own narrow view of the world and especially science since science deals in facts and not magic tricks.
So is the Earth 4.50 billion years old or 4.51 billion years old or 4.49 billion years old? Do we really know the exact age of the Earth?
We know its a fuckload older than 6000-10000
Yes, it's exactly 4,510,000,392.12415 years old.
Of course not – we do not know the "exact" age of the earth. Science has given us a very good approximation of the age of the earth – and that age is in the billions of years. What is absolutely is not, is 6,000 or 10,000 years.
hugh – are you looking for an answer in milliseconds?
Do you know how old the world is? Between some chicken scratch notes and calculations from a book compiled from stories told then written 2000 years ago, to actual scientific methods. Honestly, which do you believe?
hugh
We know that Betty White isn't 16 anymore, although a creationist might argue that she is! 😉
Are you afraid that if science is right you will not get to go to heaven? You forget it also means there is no chance you will be sent to hell on some technicality. That should put your primitive mind at ease.
The Bible doesn't give the "exact" age of the earth either Hugh. But the Bible makes up an answer, whereas the scientific estimate is based on evidence.
anyone with political aspirations will downplay their religious beliefs in their quest for power.
Or adopt new ones to 'fit in'
I see a lot of name calling, LOL'ing and zingers, but no scientific arguments from the left leaning commentors. Is it any wonder we re-elected a president that ran a campaign using the exact same rhetoric. "Romneyhood", "Fewer horses and bayonettes." "The 80's called, they want their foreign policy back." To his credit, Obama knows how to speak the language of his base.
@JL,
what "scientific arguments" are you looking for?
There's plenty of evidence for the earth's age and descent of life. Rubio is so far off-base he's the one that needs to explain why he can't accept the science. No evidence supports the biblical stories.
You want scientific evidence that the Earth is not 6,000 or even 10,000 years old? Open your eyes and look around. There's nothing but evidence that the planet is billions of years old. All you have to fall back on is a book written by men.
JL,
If you want a place to refute all your young Earth creationist delusion go to talkorigins.org.
@I'm not a GOP'er
Why do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Many well respected scientists still do not. Prior to the to the 19th century and the advent of uniformitarianism, no one did.
JL
It is impossible to make a scientific argument against someone who denies the validity of science.
Which scientists do not agree that the planet is billions of years old?
@cw
visit answersingenesis.org
jl – prior to uniformitarianism humans relied primarily on mythology and superst!t!ion.
So you answered my question with a website built by the guy who created the Creation Museum?? That is NOT science. Sorry, you fail.
None so blind as they who will not see.
@snowboarder
I imagine Copernicus, Da Vinci and Galileo would disagree with you. Also, many if not most scientists/geologists have now rejected uniformitarianism for some form of neo-catastrophism. It's pretty clear that many of the features of this earth could not have been formed by slow and gradual change.
JL,
Answers in genisis is a young earth creationist website full of bs. How do I know this? Because they have an agenda to prove the bible is literally correct. They only pay attention to those things that further that agenda and disregard everything that proves them wrong. In Science, scientists love to PROVE each other wrong, it is self correcting.
Let me ask you this....you obviously think that the bible is completely correct....so has any living human ever seen god?
What more science do you need? The bottom line is the earths age is determined Geologically using Scientifically proven methods. Creationism/gods guidance etc....has really no place in this discussion. It is hersey from ONE book which has been split in to 3 major sects. Even Carbon dating shows once living materials such as tree's etc....to be older than 10K yrs. The Sphinx for crying out loud is 5 -10K yrs old. Anyone who thinks God Created the earth and man, woman, dinosaurs of all periods, plants that dont even exist anymore but we have fossilized records has NO clue of how the Universe works. I would challenge that their lack of knowledge of the Universe only shows how far from knowing god they really are. If there is a god he/she/it/they are completely interwoven with the fabric of the universe and all of its workings and timelines. If you cannot embrace that large of a scale with your beliefs, your beliefs are flawed and are a disservice to any diety you might choose to believe.
@JL,
Some evidence:
"The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years."
"The oldest Moon rocks ... have been dated by two methods at between 4.4-4.5 billion years in age."
"The majority of the 70 well-dated meteorites have ages of 4.4-4.6 billion years. These meteorites, ... have been dated by 5 independent radiometric dating methods."
( http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.html)
Table 6: Radiometric Ages on the Amitsoq Gneisses, Western Greenland. Data from Baadsgaard (10), Moorbath et al. (89), Pettingill and Patchett (106)
weighted mean age 3.67 ± 0.06
Method Age (billion years)
Rb – Sr isochron 3.70 ± 0.14
Lu – Hf isochron 3.55 ± 0.22
Pb – Pb isochron 3.80 ± 0.12
U – Pb discordia 3.65 ± 0.05
Th – Pb discordia 3.65 ± 0.08
( as quoted on, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html)
LOL .. bring me 1 evidence for young earth. I challenge you..!
Evidence doesn't mean fairy tales. I mean Hard evidence in Geological terms.
I predict another landslide in 2016 for Democrats. 47% of this country is ignorant. No other country in west or Asia believes in this except Muslim countries.
@cw
You've just committed a genetic fallacy by discrediting and organization based on its religious background rather than the substance.
At the very least Dinosaurs were here MILLIONS of years ago and we drive our cars every day using oil that used to be donosaurs. Carbon dating has proved very reliable and it clearly shows that Earth has been here billions of years.
Or believe a book written two thousands years ago by men who look like the Taliban in Afghanistan.
@JL,
I do not definitively *know* that the earth is precisely 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That is our best scientific answer today.
Will science have a different answer 100 years from now? Perhaps. The history of scientific estimates for the age of the earth would indicate that a better method will be determined and a new answer computed. Science is always willing to adopt a newer more accurate theory that is backed by evidence.
Absolutism is not science.
The sequence of accretion, formation of water, an oxygenated atmosphere and then the formation of varied geologies – like metamorphic and sedimentary rock along with continental drift and glaciation alone would take billions of years.
I am thoroughly convinced that the idea the somehow the earth is <10,000 years is completely ludicrous. There is zero scientific evidence to support this.
@ME II
If an assumption made using radiometric dating methods was false for one element, it would likely be false for all elements.
jl – "Copernicus, Da Vinci and Galileo" were not mainstream for their era and were often persecuted or ridiculed for their ideas. using them as examples is meaningless.
the underlying concept of uniformitarianism was that there was no unnatural causes and affirmed the constancy of natural laws.
@JL,
"You've just committed a genetic fallacy by discrediting and organization based on its religious background rather than the substance."
AIG themselves state, in effect, that they will disregard data that does not agree with the Bible and are therefore unreliable, i.e. not a genetic fallacy.
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)
@JC
Here are 14.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world
@JL,
"many if not most scientists/geologists have now rejected uniformitarianism for some form of neo-catastrophism."
Nobody believes in invariant uniforitarianism.
Clearly there are sudden violent changes – like vulcanism. Ironically vulcanism is largely the result of gradual processes. Continental drift causes subduction, which in term causes vulcanism. These things are connected.
The formation of any major mountain range – the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, the Rockies, with sedimentary fossils at high alt!tude should be abundant evidence that the earth is much much older than 10,000 years. It's simply *not* a question.
@JL
"If an assumption made using radiometric dating methods was false for one element, it would likely be false for all elements."
And you base this on what, divine inspiration?
Carbon 14 assumptions, e.g. rate of C14 generation in upper atmosphere, have absolutely nothing to do with the lead-lead decay rate.
In addition, the table of specific rock samples dated used isochron dating.
"The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions are needed about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating )
@JL,
Again,
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)
@ME II
This statement is based on the presupposition that God's Word is infallible. Therefore, by definition, any "science" that contradicts God's word must be false. It is not an argument that means anything to a non-believer, but more of a statement of belief or creed. You noted it from a website i mentioned, however, i did not use this statement in our argument, therefore, I committed no fallacy.
@JL:
"It's pretty clear that many of the features of this earth could not have been formed by slow and gradual change."
That's true, but volcanic eruptions/explosions (ie-Mt St Helens) or plate tectonics/earthquakes (Himalayan Mt range) are neither slow, nor gradual changes in the landscapes. They are violent actions that change the face of the Earth. How do you explain the Hawaiian Islands, and the potential for the formation of newer islands from the outlying seamounts as the Pacific Plate moves to the northwest? Those newer Islands would be younger than the orinigal Islands, but god certainly didn't create them...unless you're talking about Vulcan!
JL,
You used that website to support your argument. That website admits that it throws out evidence that does not mesh with the bible, if you use them as a reference and do not agree with this then you have to admit your reference material is inherently flawed, and by extension your argument is flawed if you cannot provide an alternate reliable reference.
@JL,
The website that you cited as evidence for a young earth, states up front (or buried in its about page, actually) that it will not accept evidence that contradicts the "scripture". I would think, therefore, that any evidence presented there would need to, at a minimum, be corroborated by an independent source, because they may not be using all available evidence.
Alternatively, by stating that they do not adhere to the scientific method, i.e. evidence-based research, then their results should not be submitted as scientific evidence.
Well that disqualifies him for POTUS.
Wow... Can't wait to hear Rubio's take on Jonah being 'et' by a whale.
Large fish especially prepared.
silly rabbits, didn't you all know... the earth is just one grand experiment being conducted by mice. : )
@alfred,
Don't you mean hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings?
42
Id rather believe that a higher being created us, not that we evoled from Apes (which are still here by the way) or the big bang that "created the Earth" and o ya the big bang that "created the universe" to ..... SMH
adam – it doesn't matter what you would rather believe.
I would rather believe that you would bother to get a clue about evolution before you make a fully uninformed and ridiculously moronic comment.
Is this guy for real???
I'd rather believe that I was a multi-millionaire.
It's nice to dream sometimes.
If you'd rather believe in these things, then perhaps you should resolve to not benefit from any scientific truth. Therefore, why don't you turn off your computer, go back to the 14th century, and enjoy yourself. The rest of us who believe in science and the scientific method will continue to live in this century just fine without you. Have a good existence.
You need to learn about evolution. We did not evolve from the apes you see around today. We shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. Our apelike ancestor millions of years ago shared an ancestor that was a reptile millions of years before him. His reptile ancestor shared a fish as his ancestor millions of years before that. His Fish ancestor shared an single cell organism as his ancestor millions of years before that. The single cell organism has an ancestor who probably came to earth frozen ice attached to a meteor that was blown off a distant plant due to some sort of plantary collision between a comet and a planet or two planets, or even a large meter collision... Evolution does not require that you believe to exist, it simply exists.
Yes Adam, apes are still here. And with your argument you show you are ignorant. Eveolution says we have a common ancester with apes, not that we descended from them. I think you should sue everyone who attempted to teach you biology.
I’d rather be getting head, but alas, I am reading your moronic comment instead.
You would rather believe that stuff.. I'd rather be right:)
I AM SORRY BUT UNLESS YOU JUST GOT BACK FOR THE 1800 S EVER FOOL KNOWS EARTH BEEN AROUND FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS ..I CANNOT BELIEVE HE REALLY BELIEVE THAT OR JUST ANOTHER MITT AND SAYING WHATEVER PLEASES THE FAR RIGHT SCIENCE MAN SCIENCE ...GOOD LUCK WITH GETTING ELECTED IN 2016
The Bible says nothing of gravity. It must not be real. Dammmmm you science for spreading these lies!
What and every star is not a window into heaven...Wow well there goes my belief in unicorns....
Stephen F Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Without God there would be no science.
It is because we stop believing in GOD(s) that man has advance so far since it was lost for nearly 1300 years because of draconian rule under the guise called religion.
@ helpful: and your evidence for that statement is?
helpful – there is no compelling reason whatsoever to believe that to be true.
@helpful hint...Thankfully, because of science, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is no god...Even more obvious: the universe is far too complicated for the Christian god to have created it.
Without fools there would be no god.
everyday cell division works because the specificity of the enzymes reduces the order of reaction by orders of magnitude. What I meant is that the initial creation of the first cell capable of life was, for lack of a better word, a miracle either way. I believe in one version of that miracle but it doesn't make mine better than yours.
Miracle... such a poor choice of a word.
That just shows your ignorance of the theory. No one claims that a proper cell as known in today's modern plants and animals just appeared one day. It would have evolved over a period of time that is difficult to wrap our brains around probably starting from a loose association of organic molecules that somehow was better able to process energy together than apart. The main problem I've seen with people accepting evolution (aside from plain old religious grounds) is a lack of concept of the vast amounts of time over which these things happened.
The point is that you cannot use their probabilities as evidence of it being nearly miraculous when we know that the probablities used are erroneous. Again this has all been debunked on the internet and not worth agrueing again
But "somehow" and "probabilities" are the key words there, and you're back in pretty much the same place. None of the numerous theories of the chemical origin of life are without problems; all involve a lot of chance.
And even despite the fact that no one knows to a 100% degree of certainty how abiogenesis happened... all of the chemical and scientific theories are still vastly more likely to be true than the other answer proposed, which boils down to "magic." Just because there isn't a 100% answer to a question does NOT mean that all possible answers are equally likely to be correct.
Until we succeed in doing it ourselves or find it elsewhere, a push from "magic" will remain on most people's radar.