Is he on medication? If not, he should be. (Robertson, that is. Not Olsen.) He definitely should not have a public forum.
Here’s the latest from Pat Robertson, in reaction to the Dover school board elections and the Intelligent Design brouhaha:
“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.”
Sometimes my fellow Christians embarrass me. Worse, too often my fellow Pentecostals embarrass me. These comments from Robertson are shameful, vindictive, and just plain mean. They do not reflect the heart of God. Robertson does not speak for God, and his words are not supported by a clear reading of Scripture. Dover, PA, is not Sodom and Gamorrah.
I don’t know what’s up with Robertson. Is he bitter over failing in his bid for presidency? Is he simply aging and doddering at the spry age of 75? Is he no longer fully responsible for his comments? Is he in his right mind?
I don’t know. All I know is that these comments, and the recent flap over his call for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, tell me it’s time for Robertson to fade from the public eye.
As for the Intelligent Design debate, I think evolution should still be taught: it is the lingua franca of current science, and any Christian students who wish to enter the scientific marketplace of ideas need to master the theory—even if it is a theory without a solid buttress of facts. At the same time, students studying science should know the arguments for and against the theory. I think Intelligent Design ought to be taught—but maybe not as science curriculum, but as part of a course on scientific rhetoric, or scientific philosophy. Or maybe even debate.
I believe there is solid science behind ID, I just don’t think we stand a chance of winning this debate at the grassroots level. The change must come over time as the evidence for an intelligent designer and irreducible complexity pile up.
Props to Glen Davis for pointing out that Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, has posted an irenic post on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution that points out what the flaws in the debate from one standing on the sidelines. He says both sides of the debate have flaws, and neither side directly addresses the strongest arguments of their opponents. It’s not a debate, nor a dialog, but two arguments attacking strawmen. He’s generally leaning toward evolutionary theories, but his conclusion is priceless. The post is brilliant, and worth the read, but here’s the money graf: “I’d be surprised if 90%+ of scientists are wrong about the evidence for Darwinism. But if you think it’s impossible, you’ve lived a sheltered life.” See: “Intelligent Design, Part 1.”
[tags]BlogRodent, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Pat-Robertson, 700-Club, Dover, intelligent-design, ID, evolution, controversy, debate, Weblog, Ted-Olsen, Scott-Adams, Dilbert[/tags]