An interviewer recently asked Florida Republican senator and possible 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio, 'How old do you think the Earth is?' Rubio's answer caused conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat to post online a mild commentary charging the senator with insufficient dexterity in respecting both science and the religious sensibilities of many on the right. Three days later, the Times published a Paul Krugman column erupting with a verbal lava flow concerning the senator and the Republican Party.
Here's how Rubio had answered:
I'm not a scientist, man. 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. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. 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. 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.
Krugman's response joins a number of others published elsewhere. He condemns Rubio's 'inability to deal with geological evidence' as 'symptomatic of a much broader problem—one that may, in the end, set America on a path of inexorable decline.' He reaches for a simile of deep geological time:
Reading Mr. Rubio's interview is like driving through a deeply eroded canyon; all at once, you can clearly see what lies below the superficial landscape. Like striated rock beds that speak of deep time, his inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the anti-rational mind-set that has taken over his political party.
Krugman appeals to economic and business judgment, asking, 'How are we going to search effectively for natural resources if schools trying to teach modern geology must give equal time to claims that the world is only 6000 years old?' He also looks beyond geology, asking, 'How are we going to stay competitive in biotechnology if biology classes avoid any material that might offend creationists?' He charges that:
* 'As speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Mr. Rubio provided powerful aid to creationists trying to water down science education.'
* Rubio illustrates 'the modern G.O.P.'s attitude, not just toward biology, but toward everything: If evidence seems to contradict faith, suppress the evidence.'
* Republicans conduct 'frantic efforts to silence and punish anyone reporting the inconvenient facts' about climate.
* 'On economics, as in hard science, modern conservatives don't want to hear anything challenging their preconceptions—and they don't want anyone else to hear about it, either.'
Krugman repeats a psychological opinion that recurs from time to time in liberals' criticisms of conservatives:
What accounts for this pattern of denial? Earlier this year, the science writer Chris Mooney published 'The Republican Brain,' which was not, as you might think, a partisan screed. It was, instead, a survey of the now-extensive research linking political views to personality types. As Mr. Mooney showed, modern American conservatism is highly correlated with authoritarian inclinations—and authoritarians are strongly inclined to reject any evidence contradicting their prior beliefs. Today's Republicans cocoon themselves in an alternate reality defined by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and only on rare occasions—like on election night—encounter any hint that what they believe might not be true.
Does something similar apply for liberals? Not according to Krugman, who writes, 'And, no, it's not symmetric. Liberals, being human, often give in to wishful thinking—but not in the same systematic, all-encompassing way.'
Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA's history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.
