Geological Time: A Republican Explains

[EastMed]

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

Is Mr Rubio suggesting we suffer a form of cognitive impairment whereby we cannot distinguish fact from fiction?

And is he not offering a justification of his theological views by way of epistemic relativism?

I think we should be told.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...the_earth.html

[rareboy]

He is an idiot.

And trying to play to the religious reactionary base who don't hold with all that fact stuff.

[Laufey]

They should "teach" faith at churches...

And teach science in schools. Not both.

[palbert]

He is an idiot -- and a dangerous one. So stereotypically reactionary Cuban trying to straddle a divide. (And before you say anything I had a Cuban lover for 17 years and lived in Miami until 1990.)

[palemale]

What is disturbing is that most Republican office holders know better. I believe Rubio is Catholic, and Catholicism teaches that evolution is a real and true, just divinely inspired. So he cannot even say that evolution is inconsistent with his religion. He refuses to acknowledge the truth because it will hurt him with an important part of the Republican base. However, any political party that will not acknowledge scientific truth, mathematics and evidence, is unfit to govern. The Republicans want to teach mythology as science.

[Sausy]

So long as the Republicans are dependent on the support of an anti-scientific religious base, it will not get my support on anything. Rubio can't really believe what he's saying here. He just doesn't want to say "fuck your ignorance" and lose the evangelicals. Look what's happening in the Islamic world...when the zealously religious have tremendous power you march to their tune. The GOP has to stop the radical Christianists NOW.

[Jack Springer]

Another liberal jackoff session going on here.

Then Sen. Obama was asked a simliar question in 2008 while running for President. He gave a similar response to the response given by Sen. Rubio. Neither Rubio or Obama fell into the trap the interviewer was asking. Sad thing is that most readers won't even spend the time to read the specifics -- they'll just go away with an understanding that meets their agenda.

The whole purpose of the question is to provide fodder for discussions like this and score talking points to diminish the person you want to slam.

Nothing to be gained by either side.

EPIC FAIL

And here's then-Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008:
Q: 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?
A: 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.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._universe.html

[Kulindahr]

Another liberal jackoff session going on here.

Then Sen. Obama was asked a simliar question in 2008 while running for President. He gave a similar response to the response given by Sen. Rubio. Neither Rubio or Obama fell into the trap the interviewer was asking. Sad thing is that most readers won't even spend the time to read the specifics -- they'll just go away with an understanding that meets their agenda.

The whole purpose of the question is to provide fodder for discussions like this and score talking points to diminish the person you want to slam.

Nothing to be gained by either side.

EPIC FAIL



http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._universe.html

Obama's answer is more coherent. It's also more theological, and on that level it's correct: Christians have argued since the start over whether those days are to be taken literally. It's known now that the type of literature is what's called a "royal chronicle", which is strange to us but can be treated as more poetic than anything else we're familiar with -- and without knowing it Obama seems fairly close to that understanding.

[Sausy]

What IS sad happens to be that 58% of today's Republicans, and 46% OF Americans in total actually believe the Earth is 10,000 years. The truly tragic price of allowing fundamentalists to get so involved in our political system that otherwise intelligent, capable people have to walk on eggshells to avoid pissing off the scientifically ignorant. Obama was probably a bit more forthcoming than Rubio was on the matter but then again Rubio's base genuinely strongly holds that view more than Democrats or independents do. The overall numbers should bring us a great deal of pause...WHY should so many Americans reject sound science to basically historical allegory not meant to be taken at its most literal word?

[rareboy]

Another liberal jackoff session going on here.

Then Sen. Obama was asked a simliar question in 2008 while running for President. He gave a similar response to the response given by Sen. Rubio. Neither Rubio or Obama fell into the trap the interviewer was asking. Sad thing is that most readers won't even spend the time to read the specifics -- they'll just go away with an understanding that meets their agenda.

The whole purpose of the question is to provide fodder for discussions like this and score talking points to diminish the person you want to slam.

Nothing to be gained by either side.

EPIC FAIL



http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._universe.html

No. They handled it very differently.

But help us out here Jack in order to understand you better.

Do you believe in the translation of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic bible that the earth was created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago?

[Rolyo85]

The most significant difference of course being that Obama doesn't suggest fairy tales be taught at schools as "possible fact".

[eastofeden]

I wish all politicians would permanently shut the fuck up about their religious beliefs.

[Kulindahr]

What IS sad happens to be that 58% of today's Republicans, and 46% OF Americans in total actually believe the Earth is 10,000 years. The truly tragic price of allowing fundamentalists to get so involved in our political system that otherwise intelligent, capable people have to walk on eggshells to avoid pissing off the scientifically ignorant. Obama was probably a bit more forthcoming than Rubio was on the matter but then again Rubio's base genuinely strongly holds that view more than Democrats or independents do. The overall numbers should bring us a great deal of pause...WHY should so many Americans reject sound science to basically historical allegory not meant to be taken at its most literal word?

What's even sadder is that people think the Bible says that -- it doesn't. It gives not the slightest hint of the age of the earth.

[Kulindahr]

No. They handled it very differently.

But help us out here Jack in order to understand you better.

Do you believe in the translation of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic bible that the earth was created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago?

There is no Bible translation that says that. There are a couple of versions where the "study notes" or whatever make the claim, though.

[opinterph]

It's known now that the type of literature is what's called a "royal chronicle", which is strange to us but can be treated as more poetic than anything else we're familiar with ...

I'm having trouble finding a definition or similar explanation of "royal chronicle." Can you provide a link?

http://www.wordreference.com/definit...al%20chronicle

[Centexfarmer]

I am NOT shitting any of y'all while I'm sharing this.

When I first purchased my farm in Central Texas I wanted to "grow organically."

Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas has a simple soil evaluation/pH test.

So this is what I did:

Three tablespoons of soil from my garden into a peanut butter jar.

3/4 cup of water.

Shake to mix.

Let it settle.

The heaviest material will settle to the bottom first; clay, then sand, then "organic material."

Depending upon which of those layers were the "thickest" would determine the "amendments" that needed to be added; mulch, manure, minerals, etc..

Before I sent off my soil sample to get a reading on the pH balance, I showed the peanut butter jar to my socially conservative GOP/Libertarian BFF since middle school friend.

He pointed at the jar and said, "That's proof of the Great Flood!"

I said, "What?"

And he said, "Remember that trip we took to the Grand Canyon?"



And I'm like,

"NO! 2,000 + years ago God did not put the Earth into a Peter Pan Peanut Butter jar, shake it up, then let it settle into a National Park!



I just want to figure out if I can grow plumb tomatoes!"

Turns out that I could, and we still haven't found the ark.

[Jack Springer]

No. They handled it very differently.

But help us out here Jack in order to understand you better.

Do you believe in the translation of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic bible that the earth was created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago?

I understand what you are saying. No matter how Obama answered the question I won't dwell on that -- what's important is that we make the republican look stupid. It's what democrats have tried to do for years. Nothing much changes.

I believe that God created the world. How he did that, how long it took doesn't have anything to do with my faith -- nothing essential there for my salvation.

[Centexfarmer]

I understand what you are saying. No matter how Obama answered the question I won't dwell on that -- what's important is that we make the republican look stupid. It's what democrats have tried to do for years. Nothing much changes.

It's what Karl Rove HAS BEEN DOING FOR YEARS, and Obama played Rove Politics during this last election like a stand up Base.

I believe that God created the world. How he did that, how long it took doesn't have anything to do with my faith -- nothing essential there for my salvation.

Good Answer!

But that answer doesn't seem to work as well in judgement toward others with a differing perspective/damnation.

[Laufey]

I wish all politicians would permanently shut the fuck up about their religious beliefs.

Im so fortunate that religion isnt even mentioned here in politics, including the campaigning period. People simply dont give a shit and dont want politicians to preach religion.

In 2008 when the crash happened here our prime minister ended his speech by asking God to bless the country. It was one of the most talked about events for weeks because such a thing had never happened before and most people thought it was a really inappropriate thing to say.

[opinterph]

Is Mr Rubio suggesting we suffer a form of cognitive impairment whereby we cannot distinguish fact from fiction?

The Senator indicates that he is not qualified to render an absolute answer to this controversial issue. He seems to favor an approach that accommodates a variety of different viewpoints, while suggesting that the mystery of the Earth’s creation is not particularly relevant to his role as a senator.

[Is not Senator Rubio] offering a justification of his theological views by way of epistemic relativism?

As an infant, the senator was originally baptized as a Catholic. Prior to adulthood, he was later baptized as a Mormon and then reverted back to Catholicism.

As an adult, Rubio became married in a Catholic church and his children were baptized under the auspices of that same religion. Though he has regularly attended a Southern Baptist church, he considers himself to be a practicing Catholic.

From what I have read online, it appears that the Catholic Church is not particularly concerned about the timeline relating to the appearance of life on Earth, but indicates that to the extent evolution may have played a role, that development occurred under the guidance of God. The Catholic Church specifically denounces any belief in atheistic evolution and holds a special reverence for what it describes as “the human soul.”

In much the same way that Senator Rubio described how the age of the Earth lacks relevance to the role of a senator, the Catholic Church appears to indicate that sacred writings are not intended to provide a scientific exposition of nature, but rather to address matters relating to salvation. Is this the concept you intended to reference by mention of a justification through epistemic relativism?

[TX-Beau]

The Senator indicates that he is not qualified to render an absolute answer to this controversial issue. He seems to favor an approach that accommodates a variety of different viewpoints, while suggesting that the mystery of the Earth’s creation is not particularly relevant to his role as a senator.

The Senator is doing a tap-dance wherein he doesn't dare to offend the fundies who control the Pubs by stating the obvious.

[opinterph]

The Senator is doing a tap-dance wherein he doesn't dare to offend the fundies who control the Pubs by stating the obvious.

Maybe he's a "big tent" kinda guy.

[TX-Beau]

Thing is, this issue is NOT controversial, unless you're a religious loon. The only reason to obfuscate, is to placate the crazy.

[JayHawk]

I will have to admit although at one point in my life I found great solace in the spiritual belief i can no longer align myself with religions that are trending towards obfuscating the truth of science to meet the requirements of a book written by man. That doesn't preclude me from believing just makes me completely aware that once the evangelicals became thoroughly involved with politics they allowed reason to leave the building......

[eastofeden]

Im so fortunate that religion isnt even mentioned here in politics, including the campaigning period. People simply dont give a shit and dont want politicians to preach religion.

In 2008 when the crash happened here our prime minister ended his speech by asking God to bless the country. It was one of the most talked about events for weeks because such a thing had never happened before and most people thought it was a really inappropriate thing to say.

Sounds splendid.

I loved Dennis Kucinich (2008 Democratic Presidential Hopeful) for his flying saucer admissions (and alot of other things).....the people who regularly preach about God were making fun of him.....but have no problem with an immaculate conception and the parting of the sea.

[Kulindahr]

I'm having trouble finding a definition or similar explanation of "royal chronicle." Can you provide a link?

http://www.wordreference.com/definit...al%20chronicle

Quickest source I could find:

...a royal chronicle, a form in which temporal elements, whether order or duration, are structural and not literal.

The only scholarly stuff I'v found online is generally in German, where the discussion assumes the reader can handle such fun things as old Ugaritic, ancient Hebrew, and Akkadian. The above gives the important part when it comes to Genesis 1. In terms of purpose, a royal chronicle is designed to declare an act of a king. In form, it's meant to be striking and memorable, generally somewhat poetic. In terms of factual details, only what directly describes the action(s) of the king are to be taken as objectively true.

For Genesis, this means that the point is the Creation, and the declaration that God did it. The only details which directly address His action are the "hovering (meditating, brooding)" over the deep, the creation by command, the enumeration of (some of) the things created, and the pronouncement that it was good. The conclusion, that God then "rested", is arguably meant as objectively true. The temporal framework, both order and duration, are "poetic", arranged to make the declaration both memorable and easy to remember. An interesting aspect of a royal chronicle is that it generally gives location, but for the Genesis account the locus is not something that 'defines' the king, but that the king defines.

The final aspect of a royal chronicle is that for referencing the specific accomplishment related, using the poetic framework is valid yet does not impart any assertion that the framework is objectively true. So Jesus can refer to God creating the heavens and earth in six days as a means of bringing to memory the whole account, while not asserting that those were literal days.

As an aside, the term "royal chronicle" is sometimes used to reference lists of kings, or lists of what a king accomplished in his reign. The former obviously doesn't apply to Genesis, and the latter is done only after the king's death, usually first proclaimed at his funeral. In technical terms of literary genre, calling those two "royal chronicle" is actually incorrect, but to those who know the field the context tells the usage.

[Kulindahr]

I am NOT shitting any of y'all while I'm sharing this.

When I first purchased my farm in Central Texas I wanted to "grow organically."

Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas has a simple soil evaluation/pH test.

So this is what I did:

Three tablespoons of soil from my garden into a peanut butter jar.

3/4 cup of water.

Shake to mix.

Let it settle.

The heaviest material will settle to the bottom first; clay, then sand, then "organic material."

Depending upon which of those layers were the "thickest" would determine the "amendments" that needed to be added; mulch, manure, minerals, etc..

Before I sent off my soil sample to get a reading on the pH balance, I showed the peanut butter jar to my socially conservative GOP/Libertarian BFF since middle school friend.

He pointed at the jar and said, "That's proof of the Great Flood!"

I said, "What?"

And he said, "Remember that trip we took to the Grand Canyon?"



And I'm like,

"NO! 2,000 + years ago God did not put the Earth into a Peter Pan Peanut Butter jar, shake it up, then let it settle into a National Park!



I just want to figure out if I can grow plumb tomatoes!"

Turns out that I could, and we still haven't found the ark.

Hilarious.

But it reminds me of a hiking trip with the OSU Navigators, a Christian group. At the time I was a geology major, so I got all sorts of comments and questions, and ended up giving a geological tour on the way down Havasu Canyon. People would jump in and point at something as "proof" of the Deluge, and when something could be interpreted that way I happily admitted it -- but I very pointedly stopped and explained sections that just can't be explained with/by a giant flood. When we made a stop to admire the scenery (and let those out of shape recover), about three quarters of the way down, I got barraged with assertions that the earth was only six thousand years old.

My first response was simple: show me where the Bible says that. It's a good challenge to make, because the scriptures just don't say anything like that at all. My second point, cutting off the first obvious objection, was that ancient near eastern, and thus Hebrew, chronology was not like ours, so if you try to get an age for the earth by adding years, you can end up with an age of eight or nine thousand years. And the third point as that in Genesis 1 there's room for not just a billion years, but a trillion! No figure is given for how long God spent on the heavens before He focused on the earth -- and "heavens" there means everything above our planet's atmosphere. No figure is given for how long the Spirit "meditated" over "the deep", by which is meant the earth as long as it was "without form, and void" -- there could be two or three billion years there. And no figure is given for how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, while the Serpent whittled away at their resistance.

So even in a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, the universe could be a trillion years old, let alone twelve billion. And when you read it as meant, as a royal chronicle, there's no problem at all because nowhere does it make any claim how long the Creation took.


Personally, I can see God poking His finger out, making a place where there was no place, and watching it expand for billions of years while the angels delighted in checking out all the unfolding details, and then taking the time to appreciate the job so far before He got down to arranging the place where God the Son would, in accordance with His nature, take on material existence.

[Kulindahr]

The Senator is doing a tap-dance wherein he doesn't dare to offend the fundies who control the Pubs by stating the obvious.

In the first half of his statement it looks like he's being honest, and making it clear it doesn't have to do with his job. Then he shifts to parroting the party line. That's why it looks disorganized, but I don't think it really is as much as I first thought.

[Kulindahr]

Sounds splendid.

I loved Dennis Kucinich (2008 Democratic Presidential Hopeful) for his flying saucer admissions (and alot of other things).....the people who regularly preach about God were making fun of him.....but have no problem with an immaculate conception and the parting of the sea.

If you ever want to get a group of real theological students to talk all night and into the next day, ask them how aliens would fit in to God's plan.

[opinterph]

… for the Genesis account the locus is not something that 'defines' the king, but that the king defines.

Thank you for providing a reasonably thorough and complete explanation. (Quite honestly, I think your own words are much more helpful than the link.)

To what extent do you think the premise behind the Royal Chronicle concept is consistent with the contemporary position (relative to creation/evolution) sponsored by the Catholic Church?

[Centexfarmer]

Personally, I can see God poking His finger out, making a place where there was no place, and watching it expand for billions of years while the angels delighted in checking out all the unfolding details, and then taking the time to appreciate the job so far before He got down to arranging the place where God the Son would, in accordance with His nature, take on material existence.

I like that.

[Kulindahr]

Thank you for providing a reasonably thorough and complete explanation. (Quite honestly, I think your own words are much more helpful than the link.)

To what extent do you think the premise behind the Royal Chronicle concept is consistent with the contemporary position (relative to creation/evolution) sponsored by the Catholic Church?

It fits nicely with the Catholic Church position. That God created by command does not preclude evolution; in fact when He says "bring forth", it's suggestive of process more than of sudden materialization.

[Centexfarmer]

It fits nicely with the Catholic Church position. That God created by command does not preclude evolution; in fact when He says "bring forth", it's suggestive of process more than of sudden materialization.

Exactly.

It's like "bring forth that pie."

The crust had to be mixed and rolled, the filling made, then baked.

The pie didn't just "materialize."

Anymore than our Universe did.

2 Peter 3:8:

But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.

Anyone who claims to speak with definite clarity obviously hasn't read their Bible.

[Jack Springer]

Maybe he's a "big tent" kinda guy.

It's all a bunch of BS. A reporter is trying to make a big deal out of nothing to feed threads like this.

The democrat party is not a big tent party -- you have to believe a certain way to belong.

[opinterph]

The democrat party is not a big tent party ...

Do you think the "big tent" concept is something US political parties should embrace, or is it merely a "political by-product" with no greater merit than its potential to help harvest votes?

[TX-Beau]

It's all a bunch of BS. A reporter is trying to make a big deal out of nothing to feed threads like this.

The democrat party is not a big tent party -- you have to believe a certain way to belong.

The reporter was trying to feed threads on JUB?

Who knew?

Perhaps your fantasy world has run bit away from you.

While I did get a good laugh out of that, it's just ridiculous.

Get a grip, there is your usual far right loony tune craziness, then there are piss poor attempts like that. We expect better of you.

[Kulindahr]

It's all a bunch of BS. A reporter is trying to make a big deal out of nothing to feed threads like this.

The democrat party is not a big tent party -- you have to believe a certain way to belong.

What "way" would that be?

And why is it more rigid than the way Republicans have to believe?

[TX-Beau]

Oh come on people, this has nothing to do with Dems of any kind of tent - that's just a Jack sad kind of attempt to troll the thread.

[Kulindahr]

LMAO IRONY OH THE IRONY!

The republican party is all about believing in a certain way to belong... if you don't, you get kicked out and ostracized.

As far as Marco Rubio... I always said he was a fraud trying to be a Latino... but with this report, he's also a moron like most in the GOP.

Not necessarily a moron; definitely a worm, willing to squirm wherever it takes to get ahead.

As they say in jail and on parole, "Lie to get by".

[Mariatenebre]

Is Mr Rubio suggesting we suffer a form of cognitive impairment whereby we cannot distinguish fact from fiction?

And is he not offering a justification of his theological views by way of epistemic relativism?

I think we should be told.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...the_earth.html

What he is basically saying is that parents should have the right to teach their kids nonsense if that is what their "faith" demands.

[itsmejeff]

someone gets it.

It is hilarious that either team tries to claim intellectual superiority. Each side calls the other dumb. "look at the dumb things that they believe." Reality? Both parties are filled with morons. Religious hooey is no better our worse than fears about islands capsizing (look that one up, kids).

Most people are dumb. Basic understanding of math and science is non-existent in the us. Political discussions end up as appeals to emotion.

There is also a desire to claim superiority for the individual. This happened a lot with Bush. Absolute morons working in retail were calling an ivy league grad dumb. That makes sense.

[Jack Springer]

LMAO IRONY OH THE IRONY!

The republican party is all about believing in a certain way to belong... if you don't, you get kicked out and ostracized.

As far as Marco Rubio... I always said he was a fraud trying to be a Latino... but with this report, he's also a moron like most in the GOP.

You did it again -- saying that a minority cannot be a republican or conservative. You're saying they have to be a liberal or democrat.

I do not understand your logic.

Why not look beyond ethnicity and background and accept people as people.

... looks like you just did what you accuse republicans of -- you kicked him out because he didn't fit your form of a latino.

[rareboy]

As long as Rubio does not support the exclusion of fact based scientific teaching in the curriculum....even for the moronic fundamentalist kids who are home schooled...then I could care less if he thinks that their dumb fuck parents and wilfully ignorant preachers or mullahs or whoever, should be permittted to offer a poetic fantasy alternate creationist myth.

But Rubio, the Catholic.... and the claque of knuckle dragging southern Baptists had better get used to the idea that the creation myths in the Book or Mormon, Scientology, Hinduism, Wicca and the Native American folktales all deserve equal time in the classroom as well.

[Jack Springer]

^^^^^

Obama answered the question the same way.

If you can't treat him the same way - your opinion means nothing.

[bankside]

The Senator indicates that he is not qualified to render an absolute answer to this controversial issue. He seems to favor an approach that accommodates a variety of different viewpoints, while suggesting that the mystery of the Earth’s creation is not particularly relevant to his role as a senator.

The trouble is there is no controversy. The arguments amongst theologians have nothing to do with it. It's like watching an argument between two electricians about how to do the plumbing. Their dispute was rendered obsolete by a couple of centuries of scientific observation.

Would the Senator feel equally ill-prepared to talk about gravity on earth being 9.81 m/s² or any other kinds of general knowledge questions?

This isn't an issue about controversy. It is an issue about whether someone is ignorant or not.

[rareboy]

^^^^^

Obama answered the question the same way.

If you can't treat him the same way - your opinion means nothing.

Oh nonsense. He did not answere the question the same way as Rubio.

[rareboy]

The trouble is there is no controversy. The arguments amongst theologians have nothing to do with it. It's like watching an argument between two electricians about how to do the plumbing. Their dispute was rendered obsolete by a couple of centuries of scientific observation.

Would the Senator feel equally ill-prepared to talk about gravity on earth being 9.81 m/s² or any other kinds of general knowledge questions?

This isn't an issue about controversy. It is an issue about whether someone is ignorant or not.

It is really about glorifying and elevating ignorance over facts.

[HoodedRat]

The trouble is there is no controversy. The arguments amongst theologians have nothing to do with it. It's like watching an argument between two electricians about how to do the plumbing. Their dispute was rendered obsolete by a couple of centuries of scientific observation.

Quoted for truth.

Almost all arguments between theologians are utterly irrelevant outside of their own particular religious world view.

[Kulindahr]

someone gets it.

It is hilarious that either team tries to claim intellectual superiority. Each side calls the other dumb. "look at the dumb things that they believe." Reality? Both parties are filled with morons. Religious hooey is no better our worse than fears about islands capsizing (look that one up, kids).

Yeah -- that was a particularly embarrassing moment for the Republic. I pity the poor general who had to sit there and maintain his composure in the face of what had to be the most bizzarely ignorant "concern" he'd ever faced.

[Kulindahr]

The trouble is there is no controversy. The arguments amongst theologians have nothing to do with it. It's like watching an argument between two electricians about how to do the plumbing. Their dispute was rendered obsolete by a couple of centuries of scientific observation.

Would the Senator feel equally ill-prepared to talk about gravity on earth being 9.81 m/s² or any other kinds of general knowledge questions?

This isn't an issue about controversy. It is an issue about whether someone is ignorant or not.

It is really about glorifying and elevating ignorance over facts.

I'm going to go with this without even addressing the scientific issue.

It's been most of a generation since scholars discovered the royal chronicle literary type in ancient near eastern literature. Shortly thereafter it was established that the first creation account in Genesis not only falls into that type but is a superb example of it. Yet most Christians have never heard of this, and when fundamentalist types do, they reject it "because I can read it with my eyes". That's quite like saying that the kitchen dishrag must be sanitary because they can't see the germs with their own eyes.

Making that claim would be simply calling all bacterial scientists frauds -- and insisting that Genesis 1 is history written in English just for them is calling God a fraud. So indeed it is an exaltation of ignorance, because it's making a refusal to think into a virtue.