Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

[PeterMP]

I hate this argument. It turns God into some kind of Trickster god' date=' like Loki.

"I'm going to create a totally fabricated fossil record just to screw with humanity."

I have far more respect for God than that.[/quote']

Also, the question did ask him how hold HE THINKS the Earth is.

I think the Earth is billions of years old. I recognize the exsistence of other possibilities. For various reasons, I choose to not think those other possibilities are true.

[The Evil Genius]

By the way' date=' I forget who said it, but believing in "creationism" to me is not as big a deal as believing in Young Earth Creationism. The latter is a far more troubling position for a public official to take because how it impacts any number of public policy decisions.

More importantly, it is a canary in a coal mine. If you believe the world is only 6,000 years old than I have to assume that you have other fundamentalists beliefs that could include really nasty stuff like the "Curse of Ham."

At the very least, I assume that you are going to listen to adivsors with those types of beliefs.

The safe answer is always "I don't presume to know the mind of God. Science can tell us the how but not the why."[/quote']

Personally, I think both belong in the box o' stupid people that I'd mix in with Truthers, Birthers, Scientologists, Moon Landing Hoaxers, etc.

[twa]

Also, the question did ask him how hold HE THINKS the Earth is.

I think the Earth is billions of years old. I recognize the exsistence of other possibilities. For various reasons, I choose to not think those other possibilities are true.

And he basically said he does not know and it is largely immaterial in most matters.

LKB...Respect for a all powerful being that limits IT to our understanding is not respect...it's a talking point

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

LKB...Respect for a all powerful being that limits IT to our understanding is not respect...it's a talking point

You would know about talking points.

[endzone_dave]

I think it's hilarious that a significant portion of Republican supporters believe the world was made 5000 years ago in 7 days and they have to be careful not to offend these people.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

And he basically said he does not know and it is largely immaterial in most matters.

Believing in a 6000 year old earth is not immaterial. It's extremely important.

It colors so much an administration would do - from Middle East policy to environmental policy to science funding.

Hell, if you believe in YEC, you almost have to believe in abiotic oil.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 01:48 PM ----------

I think it's hilarious that a significant portion of Republican supporters believe the world was made 5000 years ago in 7 days and they have to be careful not to offend these people.

One of the things that really won me over during RCIA last year was how rational the Catholic Church was about science.

Meanwhile, the church I grew up in now takes yearly trips to the Creationism Museum.

[Larry]

And he basically said he does not know and it is largely immaterial in most matters.

And then he basically said that all the mountains of evidence to the contrary doesn't prove that the Earth didn't magically appear out of nothing, one afternoon.

Long as we're both taking what he said, and then simplifying it, and all.

[Skins24]

People care because knowledge of basic scientific fact is important and a potential POTUS candidate avoiding that due to religious ideology is both ridiculous and scary. Our nation is slipping in science education among the global community and coddling religious idealists who ignore science is only damaging that. People care who don't want the U.S. to continue falling behind because people can't adapt their religious ideology to fact.

If there was truly a separation of church and state in Rubio's mind then he would be able to give a straight answer of "billions of years old." Instead he caved and gave a cop out, non-committal answer because a large chunk of his voter base refuses to accept fact. Instead of caving he should be leading them into a factual understanding. Ignoring fact for ideology is a dangerous proposition and I know I wouldn't want someone like that as a leader.

Ah yes, THIS is the reason we're falling behind in math and science. Because some people have different ideas about how old the Earth is. Ideas that aren't taught exclusively in any public school that I'm aware of. THIS is it. Since we're slipping...what does Obama believe in then?

And Rubio gave the correct political answer.

Do you think this question was asked out of genuine scientific curiosity? Or for some different reason?

[twa]

You would know about talking points.

careful on deferring to a expert

you deny the science behind abiotic oil?...what's next Plate tectonics?

[Bang]

And Rubio gave the correct political answer.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that he gets the nomination in 4 years.

What did he gain by pandering to a voting block who is predisposed to vote for him anyway simply because of the R after his name? (They held their nose and went Mormon. Is saying that he doesn't buy young earth creationism going to sway them? I doubt it.)

They're not enough to win, this election proved that.

What did he potentially lose among those whom he must convince to vote for him?

Remains to be seen, I suppose, but i doubt it will help his overall political appeal to the people who actually decide elections.

Now, if he is saying this to give him a leg up in a primary race.. I don't know,, the base just went for a Mormon when they had fundamentalism right there to vote for in Santorum and Bachmann. (they did catch a small percentage.. and that who this Rubio dodge appeals to.)

And given the closeness of the popular vote, they definitely got people out to the polls to try and elect Romney.

it seems to me this is potentially a two-strikes-in-one-swing mistake.

I wonder where Paul Ryan stands on the question?

~Bang

[elkabong82]

Ah yes, THIS is the reason we're falling behind in math and science. Because some people have different ideas about how old the Earth is. Ideas that aren't taught exclusively in any public school that I'm aware of. THIS is it. Since we're slipping...what does Obama believe in then?

And Rubio gave the correct political answer.

Do you think this question was asked out of genuine scientific curiosity? Or for some different reason?

Yes, because those people's ideas ignore scientific fact. Their refusal to adapt faith to scientific fact does hold back scientific potential, and we've seen these people try to change education in the classroom and have creationism taught and/or remove evolution from the textbooks. Ignoring fact for religion is favoring ignorance, and that always has had negative long-term ramifications throughout history.

How about the religious fear-mongering and anti-science stances that harbored the Dark Ages? Ignoring scientific fact in favor of religious ideology based on man's interpretation of scripture can be dangerous. Preferring ignorance to fact is always dangerous. Caving to religious fundamentalism feeds ignorance and again, yes, it is ONE of the reasons we are slipping in science. Defending it is simply absurd.

We've been over this stuff, you need to read through the whole thread before responding. Obama said he doesn't think the 7 days stuff is literal, that he believes in evolution, and that he won't let faith get in the way of scientifically proven things. Very different from Rubio's response, and Rubio's party has a bunch of members pushing that religious ideology over fact, Obama's does not. More over, Obama's words don't excuse what Rubio said.

Rubio gave the wrong answer. The right answer is either about 4.5 billion years old or I'm not sure, it's however old scientific inquiry has proven it to be. The answer is only politic because of religious fundamentalism. The purpose of the question was likely to see if Rubio would cave to that fundamentalism, and he more or less did. The intent of the question doesn't forgive Rubio's ignorant answer.

[Skins24]

Just to be sure before I respond, did you read Rubio's response or are you going by what you think he said?

(Just to be clear...)

Yes, because those people's ideas ignore scientific fact. Their refusal to adapt faith to scientific fact does hold back scientific potential.

Not even close. Science isn't being held back one bit by these people. At all. I really want to see how you can back this statement up with facts.

[elkabong82]

Just to be sure before I respond, did you read Rubio's response or are you going by what you think he said?

(Just to be clear...)

Not even close. Science isn't being held back one bit by these people. At all. I really want to see how you can back this statement up with facts.

Yes, I read it, did you?

Posted by deejay dana: "Here is actually what Rubio said directly after the not a scientist line below. Nice faux outrage GQ. You fail."

"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."

... As I and others have clearly pointed out, Rubio said science was on equal footing with faith on this answer, which is false. The Earth was not created in 6 days (7th day rest), and it is about 4.5 billion years old. This is the right answer. Saying you're not sure if we'll ever be able to answer it, saying you're not qualified to answer a simple question and trying to deflect to the economy, saying it's a dispute AMONG theologians instead of the truth that it is presented by science and disputed by religious fundamentalists, all favor ignorance over science.

The simple fact he refused to give the correct, straightforward, scientifically-backed answer means Rubio is contributing to holding science back. The mere fact that he did this to appease his base means that base is holding science back. Do you really want to try and argue that there isn't a substantial chunk of Rubio's base that regularly disputes scientific fact based solely on religious fundamentalism?

Why did Rubio feel he was scientifically qualified to say the age of the Earth, yet felt qualified to back his party's stance on when life begins? We've had the legitimate rape comment, we've had the homosexuality is a choice, leads to beastiality comments, Rep. Barton thought turbines were bad because they would slow down wind and cause heat to rise, therefor fossil fuels were better, Bachmann's claim that HPV vaccines cause mental retardation, they have tried to remove evolution and insert creationism in the classroom, the Texas GOP outright rejected teaching critical thinking skills to children because it challenges fixed beliefs.

Akin, who made the legitimate rape comment, sat on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Paul Broun sits on that committee and is a confirmed creationist.

So please, stop kidding yourself that the Republican Party caving to religious fundamentalism and ignoring science isn't hurting our country.

[deejaydana]

I'm with Bang. I don't see much outrage. I see an automatic disqualification, and a sad omen that we might revisit the cavalcade of knuckleheads again in 2016. I'm hoping for a real option from the Republican Party and Rubio will not be one under these circumstances.

So did you automatically disqualify Obama for essentially the same quote made years earlier? Ok perhaps outrage is the wrong word and the beginning of Rubio's quote is akward at best but let's call a spade a spade: parts of the media view Rubio as a very viable threat to gain votes so this is a way to begin the 'delegitimize' campaign. Some people, apparently yourself, fall for the non-issue of this story. I don't think a quote as innocuous as his here is grounfd for disqualifying him because by God, is he going to call for teaching of religious matters in our schools? Of course not. Welcome to the never ending campaign for office, I really hate that's where our politics have led us to but that's a rant for another thread.

[twa]

He'a a witch

[elkabong82]

Obama at least said he didn't think it was 7 literal days, plus he has firmly come out in support of evolution and has stated as well that he won't let religious ideology stand in the way of scientific fact, and he hasn't. While I do wish he had just given a firm answer in that regard, he has backed science in other comments, and, the kicker, he isn't part of a party that currently is caving to religious fundamentalism. So while I don't like the "I don't presume to know" comment at the end of his statement, he did at least say he doesn't go with literal translation and he has proven himself to be a backer of science, whereas it's a more dangerous statement coming from Rubio because his party backs that thought and has regularly tried to subvert education and comes off fairly anti-science.

I think Rubio's answer was made specifically with the intention of not upsetting his party. I think if a man sits on the Committee for Science, Space, and Technology, as Rubio does, then he should be giving a straightforward answer to a scientific question. Again, I wonder why he avoids this question because he's not a scientist, yet feels qualified to determine when life begins.

[alexey]

So did you automatically disqualify Obama for essentially the same quote made years earlier?

...

I would not say it's the same quote but I actually do see some similarities. I would be more troubled by it if Obama was not openly and clearly on the record in support of evolution, science, etc.

Still, I am far from happy with some of Obama's science policies, such as his silence on global warming.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 03:01 PM ----------

... and, the kicker, he isn't part of a party that currently is caving to religious fundamentalism.

...

That is a big deal for me as well. Same words can mean different things when coming from different places.

[Jumbo]

I love that PeterMP is among those who can be a devout Christian and not have his points or views be so full of **** on so many matters that involve those beliefs that they're (in argument form) worthless to people of any "side" who are thinking truly critically, detached, logically, and rationally (no credit extended to those who'd mistakenly claim they are doing the same).

And "circular logic" is not "true" logic---not that even classical logic is the be-all, end-all in the human experience, either.

So many posts, while presented as more, and even within the obviously facilitating nature of the venue, are simply passing gas preserved for display.

I'd say at least half of mine are.

Rubio's was a dumbass answer in "technical" terms and a weasly equivocation in personal integrity terms.

And "yes" to the five-year-olds "if/when Tommy did/does it , it is/was wrong then too."

The fact that "they all do it" doesn't render discussing a specific example of it (anything) moot. ****ing igwads. You want to know why things don't get better, easier? Go look in the mirror. I do it regularly and even ask others for assistance (some don't wait to be asked) and then I actually listen and internalize.

When more than a minority percentage of the population can competently identify "undesirable" for what it is in even obvious, basic, and simple manifestations, and then decry it without willful stupidity or "more intelligent" strategic deflection, denial, or distraction from the point, we may actually get somewhere (and those that do and those that don't can come from any demographic).

[twa]

Elka, does he use science to determine when life begins?

Should we make that the default time for all politicians?

[Thiebear]

Here is actually what Rubio said directly after the not a scientist line below. Nice faux outrage GQ. You fail.

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.

Seems like a quote that brings people together

Vs ripping them apart. How horrible for a leader type

[Larry]

So did you automatically disqualify Obama for essentially the same quote made years earlier?

It wasn't.

But keep pushing that Kool Aid. The Party Needs You.

Ok perhaps outrage is the wrong word and the beginning of Rubio's quote is akward at best but let's call a spade a spade: parts of the media view Rubio as a very viable threat to gain votes so this is a way to begin the 'delegitimize' campaign.

And don't forget the "vast liberal media conspiracy" flavor, either.

[Jumbo]

BTW, when someone when is a committed Christian is also as educated in a relevant scientific discipline as Peter is, and is a teacher (and hasn't given me reasons to be otherwise) talks about his views on teaching creationism/ID in a school setting, I listen with even more attentiveness than the norm no matter what my current position is on the matter.

[elkabong82]

Elka, does he use science to determine when life begins?

Should we make that the default time for all politicians?

Rubio said he's not a scientist and therefor not qualified to use science to say how old the Earth is, so he is not qualified by his same logic to use science to state when life begins. he also is not qualified, by his own logic, to say what happens to water when it boils, how plants get energy from the sun, how a microwave heats up a burrito, if the Earth revolves around the sun or vice versa, if the world is round or flat.

You getting the point yet that "I'm not a scientist, man" is a cheap and stupid cop out?

[alexey]

...

And don't forget the "vast liberal media conspiracy" flavor, either.

Media turns people's attention into revenue streams. Actions of potential 2016 candidates may now get people's attention. So there may be a grain of truth in the pile of dung after all.

[elkabong82]

Seems like a quote that brings people together

Vs ripping them apart. How horrible for a leader type

Some of us don't think science should be sacrificed for that sake. Some of us think religion can adapt to science and that a leader shouldn't forgo basic facts for the sake of placating fundamentalist groups. Some of us are also not happy that Obama didn't give the correct, direct answer to the question (since you mat also go this route), but are at least encouraged by him promoting evolution and not being backed by a notoriously anti-science political party.

Though I think if you had read the whole thread before responding then your post here would have been negated anyways.