Originally Posted by cdcox
Differences between Obama's and Rubio's statements on earth
origins and science in general:
1. Obama clearly draws lines around where this debate occurs,"within the Christian community". Rubio makes no such distinction.
2. Obama indicates that in his own personal view, he modifies his religous beliefs to conform to science. Rubio leaves it as unknowable, that theology and science are equally valid ways of approaching the question.
3. Rubio goes out of his way to distance questions of science from public policy. That's fine for BEP's 18th century fantasy America, but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader.
4. Rubio belongs to a party married to the denial of inconvenient science. He denies anthropogenic climate change. Obama's public positions are consistently well informed by consensus main stream science. So the context of the two statements is completely different.
“but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader”
Thanks for explaining. So if I understand you correctly, the invisible man in the sky made everything is Scientific , it is the timeframe that is the issue.