Slate's Daniel Engber compares Marco Rubio's statement on evolution with Barack Obama's in 2008. Rubio, as we have been hearing in recent days, was asked "How old do you think the Earth is?" and replied:
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.
Obama's statement is more nuanced. He was asked what he would say to his daughters if one asked, “Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?”
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.
Now, Engber is wrong about at least one thing. He writes:
. . . they both agree that the question is a tough one, and subject to vigorous debate. I think there are multiple theories out there on how this universe was created, says Rubio. I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part, says Obama.
No, Obama did not say that Christians legitimately debate the age of the Earth. He said that they legitimately debated whether to take the Bible literally.
Engber also reports that at the same 2008 event, Obama said: "Let me just make one last point on this. I do believe in evolution." But, he continues: "even so, both men present the science as a matter of personal opinion. Obama doesn't say, Evolution is a fact; he says, I believe in it."
I don't find that argument particularly convincing. "I believe in it" implies "I think it's a fact." And I don't think Obama was shying away from that conclusion by cancelling an implicature.
But I was certainly disappointed to learn that Obama continued as follows:
. . . I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith, just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith. I think that this is something that we get bogged down in. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind then somehow you should reject religion, and I fundamentally disagree with that. In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I am amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe—and it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.
I imagine that he was being sincere, but I am disappointed that he should have uttered this false platitude. Whether or not science is literally "incompatible" with religion, it seems to me obvious that belief in evolution should decrease one's faith inasmuch as it takes away one main reason for believing in God. Certainly, I can't see how knowledge of evolution could possibly strengthen anybody's rationally based faith.
But then we know that Obama could not possibly have been elected had he believed something different.
Recent Comments