It really wasn't much of a prediction that the 2016 presidential race would start in mid-November.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has already made pilgrimages to Iowa and New York.
Clearly, this was intended for the benefit of his constituents (not the sarcasm in my voice).
While in New York, he submitted to an interview from Gentlemen's Quarterly Magazine.
During the interview, the writer asked Sen. Rubio how old is the Earth?
It doesn't matter what he says. The senator is already on the way to being disqualified for the 2016 presidential election.
As you know, some religious folk believe the Earth was created by God roughly 6,000 years ago.
You can prove this by counting the ages of the people in all of the begats in Genesis.
Scientific evidence suggests the Earth is a bit older than that; somewhere around 4.5 billion years.
Now, as near as I can tell, there is no one alive today who was there when the Earth was created.
How can anyone know for sure how old the Earth is.
Let's just suppose that I am Catholic (which I am).
Let's also suppose that I believe that the Bible contains God's revelations about Himself and what He wants from us (I do).
Let us further suppose that I believe that the creation story in Genesis is theologically correct, but not factually literal.
It was given as an explanation to a class of beings which for 99.9999 percent of their existence had no possible way to understand science (which I do).
How does this disqualify me for elective office with any voter?
As near as I can tell, God declines to be proven and insists on faith.
I, and all humans, are finite creatures. God is infinite.
Therefore, how can any human fully understand God, what He intends, what He has done, and how He did it?
We know what He has revealed, but what hubris to believe He has revealed all?
Apparently, some things are just supposed to be mysteries.
I believe that science doesn't lie.
That is not to say that scientists don't lie or make mistakes.
The universe appears to be infinite.
We are finite creatures.
You see the problem?
For example, who knew that Sir Isaac Newton was wrong, gravity really isn't a force, until Albert Einstein and Michio Kaku came along.
What hubris to think that our science explains all.
I suspect that the real issue is that a certain number of voters are prejudiced by their ignorance.
You will never meet a more virulent bigot than a man of science who is ignorant of God.
People filled with religious fervor who are ignorant of science can be unpleasant as well.
The last I knew, a fact is anything that can be disproved.
If something cannot be disproved, it is an article of faith.
It seems to me that it takes just as much faith to believe that quarks form hadrons, which form protons and neutrons, which with electrons, which apparently can be in multiple places at one time, form all atoms, which form all stuff known on Earth, as it does to believe in God.
I have never seen either.
However, I believe I have seen the effects of both.
As near as I can tell, there are no two people on Earth who agree on everything.
I would dare wager that there are no two people in the same congregation who agree on all articles of faith.
Certainly, scientists don't all agree.
If they did, there would never be any progress.
When it comes to our public servants, can't we just accept that reasonable people can simply disagree on matters of faith?
That reasonable people can disagree on what happened before the existence of man?
I suggest that unless a person's faith includes things like human sacrifice, so long as the person believes in something like the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments, we should focus on things more relevant to public office like lawmaking philosophy.