Rising Republican Senator Marco Rubio Uncertain About Creation Account

In an article released by GQ Magazine yesterday, Florida Senator Marco Rubio outlined that he is unsure whether or not the Biblical account of creation is literal.

Rubio, who is a practicing Roman Catholic, recently told the publication when asked about the age of the earth that although he understands what the Bible says about the matter, no one may ever know the truth.

“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,” he said. “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,” Rubio continued. “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.”

Rubio was one of the noted speakers at the 2012 Republican National Convention, where he blended references to spirituality with political matters.

“Almighty God is the source of all we have,” he said during his speech, just before he introduced Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to the audience. “Faith in our Creator is the most important American value of them all.”

Rubio’s views mixing creationism with evolution are not new to Roman Catholics, however. During a 1996 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican, Pope John Paul II noted two reasons for his support of evolutionary theory.

  • Connect with Christian News

“In his Encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points,” he said, advising that he was not the first pope to express his openness to Darwinianism.

“It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say,” Pope John Paul II said. “In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.”

Professing evangelicals have also made similar statements as well. Texas governor Rick Perry responded to reporters last year in similar fashion to Rubio, stating that no one really knows how old the earth is.

“I know it’s pretty old,” he said. “So it goes back a long, long way. I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is.”

However, Dr. Jason Lisle, Director of Research for the Institute for Creation Research, said that science unequivocally proves the Biblical account of a young earth, and that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

“Science is predicated on a Christian worldview, which is why a lot of great minds in the past were scientists who were often consistent Christians. But even those who are not Christians are still relying on Christian principles when they [study] science,” he said. “When we study certain processes in nature, such as the decay of earth’s magnetic field or the recession of earth’s moon, these things are not consistent with millions and billions of years.”

Lisle asserted that creationism and evolution are not compatible and are an affront to Biblical Christianity.

“Evolution guided by God is really the worst of all possibilities, because it [portrays] a very weak God that can’t get it right to begin with,” he said. “And so, it takes millions and billions of years of slow tinkering. … It’s a merciless process of killing and disease and suffering.”

“That’s not the God of the Bible,” Lisle said.

Photo: Gage Skidmore

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Matt Westwood

    Unfortunately the Christian community does itself no favours by relying on the literal creation story, because it is provably inconsistent with the actual scientific knowledge that we (humanity) know about the universe about us.

    Ignorance of science is no personal disgrace, but to declare that ignorance proudly and then to expressly offer an anti-scientific viewpoint as truth is guaranteed to get oneself considered as a fool.

    Whether or not you believe in God is one thing – but a refusal to accept a viewpoint based upon investigation of how things actually are in the universe around you because it demonstrates that a millennia-old book has factual inaccuracies will tend to get oneself branded as closed-minded and stupid – and this may be one reason why politicians of that particular stamp are, in general, failing to win at the polling booths.

    • Well said, Matt. While the Bible (as well as the holy books of all the other major religions of the world) provides us with a moral and ethical framework within which we might better conduct our lives and decency and humility, the Bible is NOT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK.

      I’ll leave scientists to puzzle out the HOWS of creation, and let philosophers and theologians debates the WHYS.

  • Does the age of the Earth or the creation of the Universe or the biological origin of the human species really make that much difference in the day-to-day life of the average American? Probably not. But I DO expect our elected officials to live in the REAL world, rather than subscribing to a lot of superstitious nonsense.

    Marco Rubio was not asked, “How old is the Earth?” He was asked, “How old do you think the Earth is?” Surely he has an belief, based either on science of theology, but instead he chose to dance away from the question. I find that dismaying. If we take “Young Earth” creationism at face value, EVERYTHING we know about physics and astronomy and even higher mathematics completely falls apart.

    During his campaign Mitt Romney lamented how science education was lagging behind the rest of the Western industrialized world. Considering how 46% percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years, Romney certainly would have had his work cut out for him if he had been elected.

    Let’s face it: “Young Earth” creationism is the antithesis of science. It completely inverts the scientific method, starting with an assumption (i.e. “God did it.”), then contorting science to fit that assumption, and if scientific facts do not support the notion that “God did it,” those facts can be dismissed as nothing less than an elaborate Satanic deception. I expect fundamentalist Christian preachers to spew this kind of gobbledygook, but not members of the House Science Committee and CERTAINLY not up-and-coming Presidential prospects.