Uncategorized

Marco Rubio shows a troll reporter how it’s done


image

Marco Rubio and the Age of the Earth
I wrote yesterday that Marco Rubio did a great job of sidestepping a liberal landmine
when answering an out of the blue question about how old the Earth is. However, Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times this morning (above link) takes issue with Rubio’s answer by saying,

“…this is pretty plainly a cautious politician’s answer, not a true-believing Young-Earth Creationist’s.”

While I agree that Rubio gave a politically cautious answer, the alternate answer suggested by the author (below) would have been much more damaging to Rubio and the author proves this point in the second half of the above sentence. The problem is not only how these trap questions are answered but also the logic behind asking them in the first place. In asking the question, the GQ interviewer assumes that Rubio is a “true-believing Young-Earth Creationist”
and hopes that he will answer as one so he can be mocked as an uneducated enemy of science. And, uneducated enemies of science is exactly how the author describes Republican voters.

“The question has a “gotcha” edge: It drops out of the blue in the midst of the interview, and it’s clearly designed to get Rubio to either take a swipe at the 40-plus percent of Americans and majority of Republican voters
who doubt the evolutionary narrative about human origins (though some percentage of those doubters, it should be said, probably believe in an older-than-10,000-years Earth) or look like an anti-science rube.”

The fact that there is a “gotcha edge” to this question cannot be denied but the author makes the problem worse with his mocking description of the voters. Saying Republicans doubtthe evolutionary narrative is no less condescending than calling people who do not buy into the fantasy of global warming, “skeptics” and the author does it twice. Lumping all people who do not believe in evolution because there is zero scientific evidence for it together as anti-science rubes would be bad enough but he also thinks Rubio should have admitted he was a rube in his free “advice”.

“I’m not a scientist, but I respect the scientific consensus that says that the earth is — what, something like a few billions of years old, right? I don’t have any trouble reconciling that consensus with my faith. I don’t think the 7 days in Genesis have to be literal 24-hour days. I don’t have strong opinions about the specifics of how to teach these issues — that’s for school boards to decide, and I’m not running for school board — but I think religion and science can be conversation partners, and I think kids can benefit from thatconversation.”

Why should any conservative be asked to preface any opinion they have about the age of the Earth, creation, or evolution with “I’m not a scientist, but…?”
Are non-religious people who cling to the theory of evolution by faith ever asked to preface anything they say with a similar disclaimer? Is everyone who believes in the THEORY of evolution a scientist of some kind? I think the answer to what is going on here can be found in the author’s sentence leading up to some words we are then asked to meditate on.

“Those believers whose sensibilities Rubio was presumably trying to avoid offending would do well to meditate on the words of Saint Augustine
, who like most of the greatest minds of historic Christianity insisted that biblical interpretation take place in the light of reason as well as faith:”

Why do we have to assume Rubio was presumably trying not to avoid offending the sensibilities of believers? I am a believer who thinks he was purposely not answering a dumb trick question because he knows that the answer would be used as a liberal weapon against him. Furthermore, neither Christianity nor biblical interpretations need to take place in light of reason. Christianity is what it was before modern science and no scientific advancement, discovery, or level of enlightenment will ever change that. Christianity has stood up to scientific and historic scrutiny since the resurrection and nothing will change that.

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining hisfoolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of HolyScripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren …”

Now, if you take the author’s advice and set out to meditate “on the words of Saint Augustine”
it is important to do it with one passage of scripture in mind.

Romans 18-20 (NIV) makes it clear that God has made himself know to everyone and that man are without excuse.

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, beingunderstood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

Knowing the word of God is for all people, why does Saint Augustine make a distinction between the infidel, who knows something of the Earth and believers who only embarrass themselves by using scripture to explain things that infidels know through reason and experience? Doesn’t this thinking conclude that believers believe only through faith while non-believers are rational, reasonable, and intelligent?

Why should believers be asked to mediate on an inaccurate and unbiblical assertion when deciding how they should answer questions of non-believers?

The Bible makes it clear that God has revealed His truth to everyone but some suppress it by their wickedness, thsee are the people who Rubio and other Christian politicians need to be careful about, not fellow believers.

The most important things to know about the Christian faith are.

“Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father but through Him.” John 3:16 (NIV)

“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” John 14:6 (NIV)

The fact is, it doesn’t matter if Marco Rubio, or I, or any other Christian believes the Earth is 10,000 years old or 16 Trillion years old unless we are to be painted as uneducated New Earth boobs who are mentally unfit for public office or to have a rational and reasonable opinion about any subject.

This is the same thing hate of Christianity do when they argue against the with itself, they use straw men and red herrings to divert attention away from solid historical fact.

Remember, we are dealing with a united front of idiocy that voted because of Big Bird, binders, condoms, lady parts, tampons, hair weaves, Food Stamps, dollar menus, magic underwear, and for a known committed Marxist who will certainly doom the economy and destroy many of our freedoms.

The only way this worked this time or will work again is to discredit conservatives who have a better and proven message with distractions and insults, social issues and religion is how they do it, Rubio shows how to shut it down.

Read more from the author here

About these ads

About I 53:5 Project

A Christian blogger spreading the message of the Gospel Isiah 53:5

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword. The other is by debt." -John Adams 1826

PLEASE SHARE US ON FACEBOOK & TWITTER

Red Pill Report is a labor of love for the many contributors who post here. They share their thoughts and talents with us because, like you, they love this great Country and hope to contribute in some small way to returning America to the principles on which it was founded. How can you help? Please share our articles with friends and family. Share buttons for Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, and Email are found at the bottom of each article. Our writers also love your comments, so please share your thoughts with us, when you can. We appreciate our readers, and would love to have more! Thank you!

Archives

Topics

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,753 other followers