Sen. Rubio states the obvious: “I’m not a scientist, man.”

The junior U.S. Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, had an interesting question and answer exchange in GQ:

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.

This is just embarrassing! He’s popular. He’s in a position of some power. And there are predictions that he’ll rise higher. THAT’S a great mystery!

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Sen. Rubio states the obvious: “I’m not a scientist, man.”

  1. Ivorygirl says:

    The greater mystery is how Rubio was able to conduct an interview with his head so far up his ass? Another science / education illiterate, who thinks lying for Jesus will get him more votes. Obviously too dumb to notice what just happened to his ilk a few weeks ago.

  2. Mary Bahr says:

    Andrew Sullivan, former editor of Time Mag and widely read blogger has put the spotlight on this interview and is making fun of it also. See “Marco Rubio is Not a Scientist” at http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/marco-rubio-is-not-a-scientist.html And he tried soooo hard to not say anything coherent enough to put him in either column!

    Must remember Marco was FL Speaker of the House in 2008 when an ID bill had passed through all the committees and was waiting and sure to be passed if it was brought up, but Marco who was hoping for room on the national stage did not have time for it then on his last day as Speaker. Avoiding real science can be a hard game to play as we have just witnessed in the Presidential campaign. He may have just “stepped in it” for 2016.

  3. Jonathan Smith says:

    What does suprise me is that Rubio is a Catholic, who are for the most part pro science and pro evolution

  4. Mike Lee says:

    Hi Jonathan, as regards the Catholics and their over dressed ambassador on Earth – he recently pontificated (ha! ha!) in one of his epistles (?) to the “faithful” that Mary was definitely a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus…. so, pro science, pro evolution but remain pro miracles – so I don’t know about the science part of that….

  5. chris says:

    It does sound like Rubio might have a higher regard for miracles than fantasy.
    How would the age of the universe determine how our economy is going to grow?

  6. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    Miracles = fantasy you idiot, but why should anyone expect you to know the difference?

    “How would the age of the universe determine how our economy is going to grow?” Just about as much as Creationism/ ID could be determined as being real science.

  7. chris says:

    Ivorygirl

    I see you’ve slithered out of your hole. Here’s some news, not everyone has your religion.

    By your comment you must be a scientist with the knowledge of how our economy could benefit from a belief that the universe is billions of years old.

  8. chris says:

    Brandon, do you consider the guy as a embarrassing nut case also?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/barack-obama-earth-creation_n_2170810.html

  9. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris, Good grief when are you going to take some classes on basic comprehension and spelling?

    Are you ever going to come up with one original comment, instead of quote mining some worn out old creationist strawman? Evolution is a religion as much as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

    It doesn’t take a scientist or an economist to understand that large parts of the economy absolutely depend on scientists being correct about the age of the Universe or the laws of the Universe that allow scientists to determine its age. But why would anyone expect you to understand that?

    I can’t answer for Brandon, but you and Obama may have something similar in common. You are a liar for Jesus and Obama is a liar for votes.

  10. Chris says:

    ‘A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to coordinate men’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism.’ – Julian Huxley

  11. chris says:

    Ivorygirl

    I’ll admit it. I can’t see where the 13.75 billion year age proposition of the universe has any relevance to our ecominic recovery. Other than printing text books or funding faithfull believer groups to keep the dream alive there’s nothing that stands out as a positive benefit.

    Do you have any examples of the large parts of our economy, which absolutely depends on the correct age of the Universe? Or are we to assume you’re a liar for evolution.

  12. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    Again your comprehension is pitiful, Huxley only suggests that evolution/science may replace religion in the future (which I unfortunately doubt), that doesn’t make evolution a religion, only in your warped sense of thinking. Funny how you can only quote mine from scientists who have lived (and died) years ago.

    So now you want me to do your research work for you once again, are you naturally lazy or just hoping for that ‘gotcha” moment.

    “Virtually all modern technology relies on optics in some way, shape or form. And in the science of optics, the fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum is taken for granted. But the speed of light must not be constant if the universe is only 9,000 years old. It must be capable of being much, much faster. That means that the fundamental physics underlying the Internet, DVDs, laser surgery, and many more critical parts of the economy are based on bad science. The consequences of that could be drastic, given our dependence on optics for our economic growth. Geologists rely on the age of the earth when drilling for oil or natural gas (approx. 150 myo). The bottom line is that this economy, at its root, is built on a web of scientific knowledge from physics to chemistry to biology. It’s impossible to just cherry pick out parts we don’t like. If the Earth is 9,000 years old, then virtually the entire construct of modern science is simply wrong. Not only that, most of the technology that we rely on most likely wouldn’t work – as they’re dependent on science that operates on the same physical laws that demonstrate the age of the universe.” Alex Knapp.

  13. Jonathan Smith says:

    Chris, I’m sorry but Ivorygirl is 100% correct in what she is saying. There are many more examples of how the age and our understanding of the Universe contributes to economic growth and obviously not just in our country. I must admit I’m a little surprise that you would challenge her on this, its basic stuff

  14. chris says:

    Ivorygirl

    O please. If I had popped up with something like Knapp’s commentary you would have ignorantly cried goat header. No doubt Knapp is a good writer but he has provided no evidence, no explanations, nothing other than second hand information saturated with improvable claims. What qualifications does Knapp have to validate his article other than here say?
    On another note Knapp’s bias should dissolve any opinion he might have of Rubio. He says nothing critical of Obama. While Obama said he also believes in the Bible, which clearly rejects the same billions of years. The book also records events like feeding 5000 people with two fishes and a little bread, raising the dead and talking snakes. Obama says he also has an Islamic faith. Islam stands in conflict with most of Christianity, but it does agree with the claim that God made everything.
    Not only does Obama clearly reject evolution’s suppositions but he stands ready to redirect the priorities of NASA’s space program to finding a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering.
    You’ve got to be kidding! Feel good! So for Knapp’s lopsided commentary you get a zero.

  15. chris says:

    Jonathan

    I would agree that much of our economy is built on science and the discoveries, which have been refined over thousands of years. But to say those facets of prosperity are contingent on the uniformitarian belief that the universe has always operated in the past as it does now is pure speculation. I’m sure Ivorygirl is 100% compliant with the ideas suggested by evolution and secular science. But right is a matter of opinion.

    The comment referring to the speed of light, “But the speed of light must not be constant if the universe is only 9,000 years old. It must be capable of being much, much faster. That means that the fundamental physics underlying the Internet, DVDs, laser surgery, and many more critical parts of the economy are based on bad science.” I’m not sure where 9000 thousand years comes from but aren’t the fundamentals of physics underlying the Internet, DVDs and the like based on the conditions that exist today, not millions of years ago?

    We now know it doesn’t take millions of years for oil to form. Under the right conditions it can form quickly.

    I know that billions and millions of years is basic stuff and a prerequisite for evolution’s expanded theory to happen. But doesn’t the vary thought of a uniformitarian view contradict the changing systems which are said to have existed to produce the universe as we see it?

Comments are closed.