that a scientist would be the correct person to ask about the age of the Earth, when he answered "I'm not a scientist, man".
That is why I personally think it was a stupid question to ask a politician.
If he had just stopped there, we would be fine. We don't all need to know the details of our planet's history.
If you asked your average Joe on the street, they could reasonably say the same thing. Maybe if you asked them to guess, most would give an answer between 2 and 5 billion years old. How many of us would run to Wikipedia, and how does that make us any smarter?
That being said, Rubio then went on to describe the question as a "dispute amongst theologians", which would only be true if you were referring to a dispute over whether to accept scientific evidence or reject it if it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Even on that level, I would not characterize it as a "dispute", as the overwhelming majority of theologians accept scientific evidence.
He also contradicts himself by implying that theologians are the credible people to seek out for answers to such questions, which is a view that I believe most of western civilization abandoned in the 17th centrury.
So that's a problem...