« Holiday Viewing | Main | Lincoln »

Thursday, November 22, 2012


Donald Pay

The questions posed to Rubio and Obama are different, which means you can criticize the answers of one without that criticism bleeding into the other. The question to Rubio was: "How old do you think the Earth is?" The question to Obama was: "Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—"Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?," what would you say?"

Rubio's question calls for a simple answer. You don't have to be exact, but if you answer billions of years old or six days old, people get the idea that you have some understanding of both the science and various interpretations of theology and that you give the edge to one or the other. Is Rubio's answer just a fudge? Is he being careful to sidestep the issue, or is he giving an honest answer?

Obama's hypothetical question assumes a theological approach from the beginning, so the issue of what science says plays no part in the answer. And he answer with a concrete example of what he actually said to his young daughters about this, which he then expands into a theological, rather than a scientific discussion. What he might say to an adult daughter might be different. It might add in some science, which his daughters at that time may not have had.

Two different questions, KB. I think you can criticize either one without necessarily criticizing the other.

Bill Fleming

To be sure, the ultimate answer is "I don't know." But KB, I'm sure you would agree that some guesses are probably better (i.e. more likely to be true) than others.

Mark Anderson

Donald Pay is correct on this, perhaps you should just look at David A. Graham in the Atlantic on this. The article is entitled "Let's Not Pretend that Obama and Rubio have the same view on the earth's Age".

Ken Blanchard

Yes, Mark. When Republicans produce a map with targeted seats marked by what looks like bulls-eye, that is an indication of violent intent (Krugman); when Democrats produce an identical image, that isn't news. When Bush wins by two percent of the popular vote, that is no mandate; but when Obama wins by three, that is a sure as shootin' mandate for his policies (E.J. Dionne).

So when Rubio says he doesn't know if "Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras", that is a scandal. When Obama says "God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it", that is a reasonable response. Never mind that both of them said the same damn thing.

Believe me, I get it.

Ken Blanchard

Bill: I am a man of science. I think it clear that science gives the most reliable accounts of the age and nature of the knowable kosmos. I also know that science gets precision and clarity within its frame of reference in exchange for epistemological uncertainty regarding that frame of reference. A genuinely scientific perspective must include an awareness of this, and one benefit that non-scientific perspectives give to science and philosophy is to remind us of this.

Julie Gross (NE)

You're 100% on track, Ken.

When Obama changes his position on gay marriage between 2008 and 2012, his thinking has "evolved".

When Romney moves to the middle in 2012, he's a man that Obama doesn't recognize in debates!

You get it! I get it!

The INCREDIBLE lengths that folks like Pay will go to excuse their president never cease to amaze. I'm beginning to atribute their Obama blindness to racism.

The comments to this entry are closed.