Why Marco Rubio Should Not Be President, or the Problem With Literalist Politicians

[alfreda89]

Mark Kleiman writes about the "Gotcha" on Marco Rubio IE a reporter asking him the age of the Earth. Talking about several other reporters' takes on this, Mark says:

Generically, not believing in the scientific approach to understanding natural phenomena, and not believing that children in school should be taught that approach, is inconsistent with the needs of technological progress.

And that's my problem right there. Personally, I don't want a doctor whose ONLY solution to a problem is "You're not trying hard enough" or "You're not praying hard enough." (Yes, I know people who have been told these things while in medical crises.) Kleiman goes on to explain that if you deny the age of the Earth, you're essentially questioning rate of radioactive decay. And when you open that can of worms, well...read on.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Which is better -- a President who denies the age of the Earth, or a President who denies that America faces real international threats to her existence? I would not elect Marco Rubio to be the Director of a Museum of Natural History -- and I would not elect Barack Obama to be President of the United States of America.

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

And that's what elections are for -- to evaluate the candidates and decide which person offered will do a better overall job.