Florida Sen. Marco Rubio declined to firmly answer a question of existential importance in an interview released Monday.
An interviewer for GQ magazine asked the Republican, a Catholic and potential 2016 presidential candidate, how old planet Earth is. Rubio didn’t give a direct answer, but suggested children should be exposed to both scientific and religious theories.
People on the left love to parade this to show how “unscientific” their opponents are, which by implication shows how “scientific” they are. But the truth is that, particularly when one considers their intellectual and political antecedents, those on the left are equally unscientific, irrespective of what they “believe in” (a religious statement in and of itself).
Since liberals are so big on educational credentialism these days, let’s look at the kind of people they “kick upstairs”. The current Democrat to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is an…Ivy League lawyer. So was the last one. Some scientists.
Let’s contrast this with our main competitor in the world, the People’s Republic of China. I’ll start with a quote in this 2009 piece:
Consider the nine wonders of the modern world; the nine men who comprise the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, led by PRC President Hu Jintao, a hydraulics engineer; Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, a geotechnical engineer; five other engineers; and two economists. (An economist, I have been told, is an engineer without charisma.) How is that possible? How could engineers run a nation, let along the largest one on our planet? And how could they do such an amazing job, simultaneously applying two polar-opposite political/economic systems to convert an ancient, rural giant into a modern, industrial colossus?
And the tradition continues: Xi Jinping, the current General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, is a chemical engineer by education.
My challenge to the left: put your money where your mouth is. Or, since you prefer to use other people’s money, put their money where your mouth is. Start running people with at least an educational background in the hard sciences. Don’t cheat with the soft ones. Then we’ll see who’s really scientific and who isn’t.