Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Education

  • Prayer Training

    Over on the Pacesetters Bible School News blog I have posted an entry on prayer teams and prayer training.

    Prayer training seems to be quite rare in churches. It’s possible that we generally feel that prayer isn’t something that should be taught, but rather is something that just happens. Many pastors that I’ve talked to over the last few years tell me that they had no training in prayer prior to taking up their first parish, and that it is one thing they really wish they could have known more about.

    Basic prayer training, in my view, is largely a matter of clearing the ground. We have so many ideas about what we can or cannot say to God that it interferes with our ability just to commune with our heavenly Father. (Pacesetters offers programs on prayer, which I teach with my wife.)

    But when it comes to prayer ministry, there is a great deal more that can be said. . . .
    Read more at Prayer Team Training.

  • Why not Intelligent Design?

    As reported in various newspapers and summarized on the Florida Citizens for Science web site, (Textbook Debate Still Evolving, Letter to Brevard County School Board, and Textbooks Changed under Pressure) a school board member in Brevard County wants to adopt a science textbook including two paragraphs about intelligent design. I find the introduction of these two little paragraphs into the curriculum of a public school disturbing. (Please read the articles linked, or some of my discussion will not make sense.)
    Now some will (and some have) asked, why I should feel this way. After all, I’m a Bible teacher and an advocate for increased Bible study, though not at government expense. I’m an advocate of prayer, though not state sponsored prayer. I believe that the universe is designed. So what’s my problem?

    Well, I have several problems. Primarily, though, we are talking about a science textbook, and what is introduced here is not science. The contents of science textbooks should be material that has gone through the processes of science–proposal, study through the scientific method, publication after peer review, criticism by others qualified to do the criticism, and then normally after some time of discussion, acceptance as part of the body of science.

    These paragraphs do not represent any of that. They are there because people who could not get them accepted by active scientists, experts in the relevant fields, and so chose instead the process of public relations and political pressure. They abandoned the idea of seeking facts–accurate data–and instead sought popularity. They abandoned the idea of truth, and instead sought political force. What really gets on my nerves is that these are, in general, my fellow Christians. We supposedly share a commitment to openness and honesty. Most importantly, we should share a commitment to truth and to an individual’s freedom to test it, choose it, and express it.

    Now they sell this all as an issue of free speech. Shouldn’t we allow all sides of the topic to be discussed in public schools? But that is not quite the point. The marketplace of ideas is definitely open to them. They can, and do, express this in many venues. But free speech does not imply that all speech is equal in all settings. If I write a devotional article and submit it to Scientific American, just as an example, I could hardly expect them to welcome it and publish it. That wouldn’t be because they hate religion, but because that isn’t the sort of thing they publish. My freedom to write didn’t impose upon them a duty to publish, and more importantly, it didn’t impose on them a duty to accept what I say.

    The problem clearly isn’t free speech. There are ample opportunities for our children to hear these ideas. They can find them in books and they could hear them in Sunday Schools. It’s not the fault of our public education system that people don’t make adequate use of the available facilities. Since I do not accept the validity of intelligent design theory, I would oppose it–not the expression, but the viewpoint–in church settings or religious studies classrooms. But that, at least, would be the correct venue in which it should be discussed. Nobody is cutting off anyone’s free speech here. If they were, we would hear much less about all this.

    The problem is that government authorities are refusing a state platform for them. That is their real complaint. They don’t want free speech; they want a forced audience, and the forced audience that they want is our children. Don’t let anyone convince you that adding ID theory to the classroom is a matter of free speech. It is not.

    So what about evolutionary theory taught in the classroom? I could argue the evidence for evolution, but that is not the key issue here. The key issue is that evolutionary theory has gone through the process. It has made itself open to testing and refutation. The scientists who support it have proposed and done the experiments. They have had their ideas tested now for a century and a half. Evolutionary theory is science. So is the theory of gravity, of relativity, and many of the ideas of quantum theory. Each of these is equally subject to question, and each may, in the future, be revised or replaced by something that more precisely represents the data available.

    That is what we need to teach our children in science class. Science. There is little enough time to teach real science. That is one good reason to limit what we teach to consensus science–what is agreed upon by the experts as working science. But there is a better reason. In basic education about science, we need to provide science with integrity. Not all ideas are equal, and we will, no matter what, choose some to present to our students as part of the science curriculum in middle and high school, while some will be left out. We need to make sure that what we present represents the scientific method at its best.

    The theory of evolution does that. The very element that anti-evolutionists (not creationists–I believe in God the creator and I also accept evolution), use the most in attacking evolution is one of the strongest reasons why it should be part of the curriculum: Elements of the theory are being challenged and tested on a daily basis. There is effectively no scientific disagreement on the outlines, but in the details there is an abundance of excellent science being done. The debates that anti-evolutionists cite as a weakness in fact demonstrate the great strength of evolutionary theory as science.

    If we allow a couple of paragraphs like this to enter into our science textbooks we have also opened the door to another disaster for knowledge and free exchange of ideas. We will have allowed popularity to determine the truth value of an idea or theory. I would think that my Christian brethren who have taken this position would consider the nature of their argument. Looking at polls and depending on popularity to win a debate about ideas is monstrously wrong, and should frighten any Christian. We know from our history what it is like to be in the minority, arguing for a viewpoint that we believe to be true, but is not accepted by those around us. We should treasure the free exchange of ideas. We should treasure the filter that we have in deciding the curriculum of our public (state supported) schools. When we instead try to have truth determined by popularity, we are stepping into very dangerous territory. It seems that being in the popular majority, in a country primarily of Christians, has made some of us intellectually and spiritually lazy.

    Finally, I do want to add a brief note on my theological problems with ID. These issues are not the ones that should be involved in the textbook controversy. The issues there are and should be scientific. But ID proponents are claiming the support of a broad range of people who believe in God, even theistic evolutionists. We get included when it’s convenient and excluded when our ideas are distasteful.

    I reject Intelligent Design because I believe the universe was designed by God. ID is mislabeled. It should be theistic. Further, it doesn’t prove what Christians want it to prove and what many think it proves. It proves only a level of divine intervention, not the absolute primacy of God the creator. I believe that God operates through natural processes, but I also believe God always operates everywhere. Because of that, intelligent design theory is anathema to me theologically. It’s not just God in the gaps; it is God reduced to a convenient size to be studied in a lab. I’m not surprised at the limited success ID advocates have had in producing new science. God woudn’t fit in their labs, so whatever they are studying is likely something else.

  • The Five Minute Solution

    It’s nice to know that the desire for the “five minute solution” is not restricted to my own field of Biblical studies. Many people have asked me over the years for a way to become really knowledgeable of the Bible with only a short devotional study, and I have to tell them that while one can benefit from five minutes a day, one will not become an expert on that plan.

    Recently I had been watching the way science is discussed in the media and in normal conversations, particularly with reference to the creation and evolution controversy. There people simply don’t want to take the time to understand the subject, whether reporters, opinion writers, or ordinary people expressing their opinions. The question has been whether scientists communicate badly, or whether the public needs to dig in and take more responsibility themselves. (For the record, I’m pretty simplistic on this one. I think better public education would solve or ameliorate many, many problems. I think it would be the best investment of public money possible. See my essay Make Education a Priority.)

    Now Newsweek, through a story featured on MSNBC, (Food News Blues) has brought a different topic into focus, but dealing with the same issues–diet. Now I need to make a personal confession. I’m overweight. But I grew up in a medical family, with my father an MD, my mother an RN, and the scientific approach to medicine a part of the daily intellectual diet. I can tell you why I’m overweight. I eat too much and exercise too little. I know how to solve the problem. Eat less and exercise more. There are numerous details about my diet that can be improved because of studies in nutrition. There are specific things that I should eat more of, and specific things I should eat less of, but none of those details change the basic formula.

    The writers blame the situation on “too much information.” Another blog (Remember, it’s never the media’s fault) has commented that this isn’t quite accurate. He asks about the writing of headlines that tend to misguide. There are several examples of those headlines in the Newsweek article as well. One wonders why they didn’t focus on that.

    As an aside, I recall a headline a few years ago about the excavation of a town in Galilee, where Peter once lived. The headline implied that the archeologists were looking for “the house where Jesus taught” while any reading of the archeologists reports would have suggested no such thing. The headline grabs attention, but it doesn’t convey information, at least not accurate information.

    But I think there is an even deeper problem. It’s not just too much information or badly formed headlines. We will get badly formed headlines and poorly organized information as long as that sells newspapers. The newspaper with the headline “LOW-FAT DIET DOES NOT CUT HEALTH RISKS, STUDY FINDS” will generally sell more copies than the one with the headline “LOW-FAT DIETARY PATTERN AND RISK OF INVASIVE BREAST CANCER.” And as long as that’s a fact, it’s silly of us to expect our news media to produce the latter–an accurate headline–when what we will pay for is the former.

    If we think we can get our health information in five minutes a day, we are going to get the quality of health information that people with that little interest in their health deserve. The same thing applies to every area of policy. We complain about the spin politicians put on things, but we tolerate it, and the media reports it, because we pay for it. Then we vote for the politician with the best spin, and he gets elected. Immediately after the election we return to griping about the horrible politicians and their spin. Well folks, they’re just providing for us what we’ll pay for. The media is just providing for us what we’ll pay for.

    Isn’t it about time we demand better?

  • More on Communicating Science

    Carl Zimmer has more on The Loom about communication and evolution, with an interview with Randy Olson, director of the movie A Flock of Dodos. I believe he has some good suggestions about communication, but I also believe we are still missing the largest issue. I don’t think that a nation that is addicted to information that is presented quickly, and requires little effort to comprehend is going to be able to understand the issues involved in science. That would be OK if people without any understanding of the issues were not trying to make decisions about it.

    PZ Meyers has already made some good notes over on Pharyngula.

    Those whose primary role is to communicate with the public should look at the suggestions here. But again, I don’t believe that those involved in scientific research and even in classroom teaching (beyond a few basic courses that are almost identical to the popular media) should have to be concerned about these types of things. They should take notice, however, of the fact that they are not well qualified to communicate with the general public. A number of scientists have gone out to debate with creationists who should have stayed in their labs.

    But that is not the primary problem with this debate. I believe that the primary problem is that we have an issue that can be expressed well by one-liners on one side, but requires serious study on the other. It is much easier to understand that “God did it and we don’t know how” than it is to deal with biological issues. Even at the gross amateur level (which is where I am), evolution is simply more complicated than creationism. Creationists will tend to win debates for this one reason alone.

    There is indeed a need for some good publicity work. There are major public misunderstandings that can be dealt with through some good publicity. Projects such as the Clergy Letter and Evolution Sunday help let people know that this is not an issue that divides between people of faith and the “infidels” (however defined), but rather that people of faith are involved in large numbers on the evolutionary side.

    I’m afraid that I sense a certain condescension from the media savvy communicators. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I’m glad that scientists are principally gifted at dealing with complex scientific information. And just to keep beating my regular drum–solid education is what we need.

  • Who Needs to Change?

    Carl Zimmer, on The Loom, writes about A Flock of Dodos, and comments on scientists who are portrayed in the movie as “inarticulate and high-handed.” Zimmer expands on this topic in a very balanced way, I think, but I question what is expected of scientists in terms of public relations.

    I know well from my own field that those who do the best work in their field are often not the best people to present it to the uneducated. If you expect all scientists to learn to speak publicly like Kenneth Miller, then many of them are going to have to take time away from research and from teaching other people to be good scientists.

    I know I harp on this topic, but the bottom line here has to be education, especially science education, starting from elementary school. Most people, and most politicians claim that education is our priority in this country, but the actual state of education doesn’t reflect a high priority. Scientists would be able to communicate scientific ideas much more easily if the public was conversant with basic scientific concepts.

    Of course, in a democracy, we need to educate the public in order to get the funding and the standards for the needed education, but that is a task for all of us, not just those in the scientific disciplines. I certainly hope this task can be accomplished.

    (See my previous essay, Make Education a Priority.)

  • Wesley Elsberry Profile

    There’s an excellent profile on Wesley Elsberry on the Daily Kos who is both a Christian (United Methodist) and a scientist who accepts the theory of evolution. He works for the National Center for Science Education. This article makes a number of excellent points regarding the need for quality science education.

    I recommend this excellent article. As a Christian Bible teacher, I come to this from a slightly different perspective, but I feel a certain frustration because so many make the assumption that as an active and committed Christian I must also accept young earth creationism. A few folks are so kind as to allow for old earth creationism, but it is again taken as a given by many that I must accept intelligent design–surely I believe that God designed the universe! But the fact is that ID doesn’t prove that at all, and that there are many Christians all across the spectrum who see the difficulties with it.

  • Education and Funding in Escambia County

    I apologize to any readers outside of this area, but the following blog entry deals with the politics of Escambia County, and to a lesser extent to Florida politics in a more general way. I know that others do have similar problems in their counties and states, so you might be interested in this just a bit, but the focus is local.

    My step-son James was a student at Tate High School in Escambia County, Florida before he passed away in September 2004. (His Deeds Keep Following Him). One of his greatest sources of pride and joy was his participation in the Tate Band. This was what took up his time and energy day in and day out. He had planned to try to go to college on a band scholarship. His motivation for everything else he did at school came through the passion he had for the band.

    My wife, Jody, and I have continued to keep in touch with the Tate Marching Band (Showband of the South) and to support them as we can. We still get the newsletter, and the current edition reminds us that Escambia County Superintendent of Schools Jim Paul has proposed that the school day be cut from seven periods to six. I was already aware of this, and was considering writing something about it, but the band newsletter article motivated me to get the job done sooner. It is programs like band and sports, sometimes called extra-curricular activities, that will be most hit by the reduction in the school day.

    But academics will be hit by this move as well in two ways:

    1. Directly through eliminating programs and classes, especially electives
    2. Indirectly through removing some of the balance in students’ lives and some of their motivations

    The reason for this proposal is simple, and I have to sympathize with Superintendent Paul as he tries to solve the problems with which he has been presented. Escambia County teachers are much more poorly paid than those in neighboring counties (Unlikely group queries 6-period plan). If he is to improve teacher pay, the money will have to come from somewhere else. Right now, that “somewhere else” appears to be school buildings and the extra hour in the school day.

    In the past, Escambia County voters have been very reluctant to approve taxes as additional support to our schools. Our primary funding comes from the sales tax, and is distributed by the state according to some mildly complext formulas. (You can get more information on how this works from Education News You Can Use (School Funding Data), provided by the Florida School Board Association.

    Some facts you might want to notice there include these:

    • Florida ranks 29th in teacher salaries. We should note that Escambia County is not one of the highest paid counties in the state.
    • Florida ranks 49th in citizen spending on education.
    • Florida ranks 43rd in student : teacher ratio

    So we are not spending an extraordinarily large amount of money on education in the state of Florida, in fact, we seem to be going backward. I recommend reviewing the following page from the National Education Association site, Good News about Public Schools in Florida. Look at the source studies as well to see where they got this information. There are obviously some good things going on, but there are also problems.

    I’d rate declining spending on education as a problem. I stated my own views on the problem in a prior essay, Make Education a Priority. I know that the trend today amongst voters and politicians is to cut taxes and to cut spending, but I’m going to swim against the current on this particular point. There are things that can be cut and should be cut. The simple solution, and in my view the cowardly solution, is to cut spending and taxes across the board.

    Let me illustrate. During our son James’s illness, we had to watch our spending. Since my wife and I were self-employed we had to make a decision as to some things that would be cut, and some things that wouldn’t. We quickly agreed that those things that were part of the process of generating income should not be cut. It didn’t take lengthy thought or discussion, because it’s too obvious. We needed to continue to generate income.

    In government spending, the equivalent decision is the one between infrastructure spending and other items. If you cut on infrastructure spending you will pay for it over the long term. Notice in the items on the NEA page cited above that many of Florida’s school buildings are deteriorating. That’s an obvious issue of infrastructure spending. But I would argue that education as a whole is a matter of infrastructure spending. If we educate and motivate our kids we are contributing to the future economic power of our county and our state. We will be reducing the number of inmates for our prisons, and recipients for our welfare rolls. Both of these will make our economic condition better. Unfortunately we seem to prefer to put a bandaid on the cut, rather than avoiding the knife. We’re more willing to put people in jail than to prevent them from getting there in the first place.

    Yes, I do believe education is a silver bullet. This means well-balanced education that motivates kids, instills community values in them, and prepares them for a productive life. Will simply making education available suffice? Absolutely not! We need to uphold high standards of discipline, academic accomplishment, and community involvement. I’m glad to see that Florida schools are cited for high standards. I hope we make them higher.

    So what do we do?

    Write to your school board members, school superintendents, and also your representatives in the state legislature. When you write, let them know specifically what you want to accomplish, and let them know you understand the cost and are willing to stand up and help with paying the bill as well. We can write the school superintendent as often as we want, and fill his files (or his wastebasket) with letters telling him how we want schools to stay open or the school day to be seven rather than six hours, but if he doesn’t somehow get the money, we may simply be urging him to accomplish the impossible.

    My wife and I are going to write these officials–the school board member from our district, the superintendent, our representative and senator in Tallahassee, and our governor urging them to support education. We will tell them we aren’t interested in words. Practically every politician out there claims that education is a priority. But as I have told church leaders who are wringing their hands about the failure of church projects, you can tell the real priorities by looking at the spending and the personal presence of the people involved.

    Politicians will try to claim they can provide the highest quality education without any additional taxes. They do that because that is the popular thing. The politician who tells you the truth–quality costs money–gets in trouble. You should ask them precisely from where the money is going to come and how they are going to make it work. And don’t be misled by those who believe simply putting money into the schools will solve the problem. We need adequate resources with accountability.

    As citizens we need to be involved, and we need to be involved for the long term. We not only need to work for and vote for the candidate who promises to do more when running for office, we also need to be there to work for the finances and to defend the politician who has the courage to admit that the finances are necessary. We also need to be there for the politician who has the courage to increase accountability.

    For those of you in Escambia County, use the following web site to find your school board member and contact information:

    To look up contact information for your superintendent and school board members: Escambia County School District.

    For Florida state senate: Find Your Legislators.

    For the Florida House: Florida House of Representatives – Representatives.

    Florida Governor (Jeb Bush): Contact Governor Bush.

  • YOU Teach Your Children

    There are plenty of comments on the Dover decision going around right now. I’d like to recommend just a couple of them, though these are only examples of many good comments. Both provide some good links to more information.

    I believe that the result of this trial was pretty much a foregone conclusion. There was little doubt that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement was essentially a religious movement, and there was no doubt at all that there was no theory of ID, certainly not one that was ready for the High School science classroom. We need to teach basic science, well-established science in our high schools, and we have very little time to accomplish that. New ideas need to establish themselves, go through the rigor of scientific debate, and gain a consensus before they become part of the public school curriculum.

    But I want to address another issue. Many people who share my Christian faith are concerned tonight because they feel that religion is under attack. Those who accept one or another of the views involving special creation feel that their children can attend public school only at the risk of their faith. “Godless evolution” has won the day, and they don’t even get a hearing, not even a tiny disclaimer. I could tell them how well evolution is established as a scientific theory, and I would be right. I could tell them how bad an idea it is to trust religious education to the government, and I believe that’s a good point. I could point out the evil things that have taken place when government took distortions of faith and applied them by force, and that would be valid as well.

    But none of those things are likely to move that fairly large group of people right now. I think it’s unfortunate that more dialogue and education does not take place in this area. More people need to realize how many people of faith, such as myself, and how many church leaders do not see a conflict between evolution and faith.

    Let me suggest something that I think should strike home, not only for those opposed to the decision, but also for all other people of faith who support it. We need to look at reforming religious education. In our churches we have a substantial amount of time available in which to educate our children, to supplement the education that they receive in public schools or even in private schools. In many churches in my area we have Sunday School, one or two youth meetings per week, and a Wednesday night teaching program. That’s a great deal of time. Right now, we’re using most of that time to tell a few stories and make them feel good.

    Parents have even more time. They can get involved in helping their children with homework. If you believe that there is a place where faith needs to be introduced into the study of science, you have the power to do it. At the same time as you’re doing it, you will be spending more time with your children, building your bond with them, and increasing the chance that they will become productive citizens. I have some ideas of what should be taught, but even if what you teach is repugnant to me, you have a right and even a duty to take the time and effort to teach it.

    It’s very simple.

    You want your children taught intelligent design? Get with your church’s education program and get some programs on it. I teach such a program for those who hold to a theistic view of evolution through Pacesetters Bible School, and I have produced a tract on the subject called God the Creator. Those who object to any form of evolution will not like my programs, but there’s no shortage of folks willing to teach other viewpoints.

    You want your children to pray? Student led prayer is legal right now. Teach your children to pray–that is, after all, a function of parents and churches–and then release them to work and lead in their own way. You really aren’t prevented from any of this. (I teach this one too. See my book I Want to Pray! co-authored with Rev. Perry Dalton.)

    You see, I don’t think the courts are taking away your right to educate your children about your faith. Not at all! What they are taking away is your right to be lazy and to expect somebody else to do your job, whether you are a religious educator or a parent.

    So get out there, get active, and exercise the rights you have.

  • The Clergy Project

    Wesley Elsberry, on The Panda’s Thumb reports that the Clergy Project is nearning its goal of 10,000 signatures. As I write this, I see that it has attained that goal. I encourage all of my clergy friends to sign this document. It is not only protecting the teaching of science; it is protecting religious education as well. I encourage all of my friends and readers who are not clergy to pass this on to any clergy they know and urge them to sign it.

    But now a quick note: You won’t find my signature here. Why? Because contrary to popular opinion, I am not clergy. I am not ordained. I am a writer and religious educator. I received my MA degree at a seminary (actually the graduate school granted it, but the classes were taken at a seminary). I study and teach Biblical languages and Biblical studies, but I’m not an ordained minister, and thus don’t qualify as “clergy.”

    Why is this so important?

    Both “creation” and “intelligent design” are essentially religious or theological doctrines. They are not science. Things are not necessarily bad because they aren’t science, but they should not be taking up time in the science classroom. Further, we should be very concerned if science teachers, chosen and employed by the government, trained to teach science are instead asked to teach religion.

    Often Christians look at separation of church and state as a barrier to sharing their faith and even to living their lives as Christians. Separation of church and state is not about keeping you from being a Christian. It’s not even about keeping our leaders from being Christians, leading Christian (or better Christ-like) lives, and even testifying to their faith. It’s about keeping the government from promoting religion. We, as Christians, should want to keep the government out of the business of promoting religion.

    Let me give two major reasons. First, the government tends to get things wrong many times. If I let the government prescribe prayer for my child in school, I have no guarantee that this prayer will be appropriate, in accordance with my beliefs, or in accordance with what I want my child to be taught. That’s my selfish reason for keeping the government out of it. Let me teach my child spiritual things. Let me choose a church, synagogue or other organization to teach my child about religion. Second, for me as a Christian, religion cannot be forced. When we place a person in authority in front of our child, someone who represents the state, however indirectly, we tend to imply a force of law to their faith. I believe that is damaging. Spirituality needs to be voluntary. Separation of church and state has given us that. This means, in addition, that we Christians, as the majority, need to be sensitive to the pressure we put on those in the minority, such as Jews, Muslims, or those who reject religion entirely when we attach our spiritual beliefs to the power of the government. I don’t believe we do ourselves any favors by doing so either.

    But what if you disagree with what is taught in the classroom? No problem! If you are willing to get involved with your children, you have much more influence on them than the school does in any case. Get them some books on your point of view. Let them learn your beliefs from them.

    Why can’t your child pray during those school hours? Actually, your child can pray. If you teach your children to pray, they can be involved in prayer and religious activity throughout the school. Student led prayer and student led religious activities are protected forms of free speech. Here the law forces us to do what we should have done anyhow–educate our children, and then trust them to lead.

    Keeping science the subject of the science classroom will be good for both science and religion.

  • God’s Wrath and ID Rejecters

    Robertson warns Pennsylvania voters of God’s wrath

    Robertson is just too easy a target, but I do want to take this opportunity to point out that the situation in Dover is a bit more complicated than acceptance or rejection of God.

    For example, I’m a Christian who believes that the entire universe and everything in it was designed by God. Nonetheless I don’t think anyone has established a scientific basis for detecting more and less design in specific pieces of the universe. My theology, in fact, suggests that one should not find that God is less present in one part of the universe than in another. But that isn’t my reason for opposing the teaching of ID in the high school science classroom. Rather, my concern is that consensus science, the stuff that’s accepted broadly in the scientific community should be taught. Further, I think that theology should not be taught in public school, and indeed shouldn’t be taught by the biology teachers. So I certainly accept God, I believe God is the designer, but I don’t believe it should be the task of public schools to teach this.

    There are, however, a number of other positions that would also reject the position of the Dover school board, and still not reject God. Some believe that ID might well be science, it might well be developed into a valid scientific theory and be accepted by scientists, and thus become a valid topic for the high school science curriculum. If so, great. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but then I’m not a scientist, and I’m also not a prophet. Others might believe that ID is a fine theory, but that due to a strong commitment to separation of church and state might still object to it becoming a topic in science classes. I know quite a number of people who believe in young earth creation and would nonetheless reject its inclusion in public school curricula. Why? They believe that freedom of religion depends on keeping government out of it, and so they would reject including something religious in the public school curriculum.

    But there is a further problem here. Robertson seems to feel that God’s wrath will fall on the people who disagree with him. There is no reason to believe that he is right. In fact, there is no evidence that various places he has condemned have been any more subject to God’s wrath than other places he hasn’t noticed. That’s not a big surprise.

    I suspect, however, that some Christians will try to excuse what Robertson said as excessive rhetoric. I don’t think it is excessive rhetoric; it’s a dangerous belief, and it’s coming to be the belief of many conservative Christians. Again, I don’t want to attack conservative Christians in general. There are plenty of conservative Christians who take the love of Jesus seriously. I don’t think they’re better or worse than other people as a group. But they are being fed a line about creation, evolution, and intelligent design that tends to make all those who reject ID into some kind of nasty, dangerous people.

    At a minimum, Christians who talk about this issue need to make it clear that folks can disagree without bringing down the wrath of God.

    Don’t worry Dover. God can still hear your prayers. Keep right on voting your consciences and your good sense, which was given to you also as part of God’s design.