Almost every matter of history, we typically accept based on faith in other human beings.

There’s such a thing as rational trust, and irrational mistrust, though.

He was right to point out that the scientific question is economically irrelevant.

Tell that to petroleum geologists. A topic relevant to someone who sits on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Technology Committee.

Admittedly, Marco Rubio should not have hedged on his faith in scientists regarding the age of the earth rather than to say what seemed politically convenient. He was right to point out that the scientific question is economically irrelevant.

Of course, some things scientists say are obviously erroneous. A good example is Richard Dawkins’ claim that his metaphor of a multiple-dial lock illustrates an increase in the probability of evolutionary success of natural selection. It does not. It illustrates an increase in the efficiency of random mutation. In his failure to understand the distinction between efficiency and probability, Dawkins demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Darwinian algorithm he is attempting to explain (pages 121-122, “The God Delusion”). In this case, the layman can rely on his personal knowledge of high school arithmetic and the Darwinian algorithm to avoid false faith in a scientist.

http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/

But even staunch pro-lifers insist that science can help tell us. They insist that a fertilized egg or zygote contains in its DNA all the instructions for a new human being and therefore is a new human being. Where did that information come from. Many times when the concept of quickening is brought up, pro-lifers point out that there may have been uncertainty in the past as to when a person existed, but modern embryology has clarified that life begins at conception. In several discussions recently here and elsewhere, pro-lifers have told me to check out what embryology textbooks say. In many ways, the pro-life argument relies more heavily on science than the pro-choice (or pro-abortion) arguments do.

If Obama had used some other metaphor than “above my pay grade” (which I acknowledge was an abomination), his answer would have been at least as acceptable as McCain’s (though not as popular). McCain’s position was untenable. “Babies” possess human rights from the moment of conception, however, we may violate their right to life if they resulted from rape or incest, or if we want to harvest their stem cells.

Joseph Knippenberg,

Aren’t you, somewhat like Rubio, evading the issue at hand? Of course we ought not be blind to the limitations of science. That doesn’t mean we can’t say the earth is 4.54 billion years old. Both you and R. R. Reno feel Rubio gave a bad answer to the question, but neither of you has said so far what a good answer would be. And was Rubio actually making your point, or just trying to evade answering the question?

Science has its limitations, but it also has its strengths, and when the question is the physical age of the earth, it is not “scientism” to look to science for the answer.

In its own way, it’s just as bad an answer as that offered by Senator Rubio.

And I stand behind my insistence that the benefits we derive from science ought not to blind us to its limitations. Our current president isn’t perhaps as alive to this problem as I’d like.