William Shatner gives me a headache. Long, long ago he was the captain of the star ship Enterprise on the only real Star Trek series. The show was over before I was old enough to watch it, but it was a staple on Saturday night. You had to endure a few minutes of Lawrence Welk and then Shatner would boldy go where no man has gone before.

Shatner made some very bad movies and sings on one of the worst records ever made.

There are two ways of looking at Shatner. He has gone from a promising Shakespearian actor to making Priceline commercials and becoming the Object of Worship in an internet cult. You can point out that the commercials are funny and that he is working long past an age when most people have retired. He is always trying something new as his very complete web site shows. You can mock him as hundreds of web sites do, but he always comes back. The jokes about hair and girth were funny when he was younger and still trying to be a sex object. Now that he has grown comfortable being old, they just don’t seem funny any more. “Hah! Look at the old man! Isn’t he fat! And bald!” is not exactly clever.

Shatner has “it”. . . that strange star power that makes even his bad stuff compelling. This year I saw a Hallmark special that was pretty bad, but Shatner owned the set when he was speaking. How does he do it? He is not afraid to be different and in a world of thousands of sounds, his voice and odd delivery cuts through.

Then there is his new CD: Has Been. It was on my Christmas must-buy list. (You cannot go to Steamers all the time, though if you are not there now, you wish you were.) Why? I heard the music was shockingly . . . good. And so it is. Shatner always has been a sound. Now he is a compelling record. I have turned this CD on twice in a room full of people used to ignoring background music. It stopped every other sound in the room both times. Most people mock it, but then they start listening.

The cd is full of mockery, of Shatner of course, but also of a culture that lets him exist and pays him well. The title song points out that most of the people mocking him as a “has been” are “never have beens.” With the mockery, comes a big dose of truth about death and life. It is also full of hope as Shatner intones that “has been” may be again. The sound is unique, like nothing else you can hear, and oddly authentic. It is post-post-modern mocking the mockers and at times refreshingly old fashioned.

Tonight Shatner earned a Golden Globe. He did it by playing what people expect to see, twisting it, doing it in a manner that cannot be forgotten, and allowing himself to grow old. There is hope for us all if we do the same.

This Dan Brown book is a prequel to the other one. You know. The one that has been on the best seller list for almost as long as the made up scholarship in it has existed.

At least we know one thing: either Brown is now a better writer or he got a better editor for the Famous Book. Angels and Demons has few of the strengths and all of the weaknesses of its younger relation. It has all the two-dimensional characters from the famous book plus even more stereotyping! Italians behave like Italians! Women are props, except when Brown is carefully showing that they are not props. Brown tells even bigger howlers about the Roman Catholic Church in this one. For example, it is pivotal to his plot that Darwinism and “science” be bothermose to Rome. One supposes Brown has paid no attention to the history of science and the repudiation of the “warfare” metaphor for Church-science history on which his book depends, but confusing the Vatican with ICR is just too much. It is as serious a blunder as thinking Republicans are just like Democrats, because they are both American poltical parties. The prequel also has even more improbable events and plot holes.

Having said all of that, Brown is fun to read in a beach book sort of way. The pages turn with little mental effort. One even supposes that pretending in the forward that the stuff he is making up is true is also good for sales. However, the sad reality is that some people take his fiction seriously. That is too bad. He hates the Roman Church and he is willing to tell lies in order to make his point. Such hatred is sad to watch.

Yahoo! News - Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran: “The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.”

One can only hope that this is true. Something must be done about Iran and that something will end up including some sort of military action. This action might be support for anti-government forces in Iran or it might include more direct intervention. The present government of Iran cannot be allowed WMD. However, this is where the failure to find WMD in Iraq hurts.

I believe the war was justified for several reasons. One reason is that, at the time, Bush was justified in thinking there were WMD in Iraq. He was wrong (as were all us, including opponents of the war, who believed they were there). Being wrong is no sin and one has to make the call with the information one has. Bush had powerful data that Iraq had WMD. Countries like France and Russia agreed. He had to act or risk Sadaam giving those powerful tools to even worse folk. However, one cannot pretend that being wrong does not hurt. Foes of the USA now have a lever to attack our nation each time we see a problem in the world. We will claim (as every one else does again) that Iran has WMD or WMD programs. Iran will deny it and point to our error in Iraq. We will lose this argument in the court of public opinion.

That is why Bush must (and will) ignore the court of public opinion. Bush acted rationally in Iraq to go get WMD he believed were there and he will do so again in Iran. One can hope that he need not use direct force as Iran is much larger and stronger than Iraq ever was. We are in a world-wide war against terror. Countries that harbor terrorists, as Iran does openly, must be punished. If we do not, the cost will be much higher later. We do not need a Middle East North Korea.

I am changing over my “look” and have made comments easier to see and post. I also have deleted all comments. If you posted recently, please do repost. I hope the new look is cleaner and easier to read.

More recent: I figured out a way to get rid of comments and maintain trackback which was always my preference. When I saw that comments existed under trackback (which I had not noticed for a while), I thought I had to keep them and moved them to a better space. Now I have figured out how to keep one without the other. Hurrah. . . less work for me!

Groups favoring traditional science, like Panda’s Thumb, often argue that the motives behind ID actions like the Cobb County warning sticker matter. The courts also ruled that this is the case.

Should motives be considered in the academy? One reason I support ID is that it coheres with my religious worldview. Let us leave aside any “secular” reasons I might have for supporting ID. (My Platonism is at least as powerful a motive for being an ID person as favoring a particular version of Christianity. Lest I be misunderstood: Christianity qua Christianity is more important to me than Platonism, but not all forms of Christianity are incompatible with Darwinism, including versions I have practiced.) Should religious motivation cause an idea, otherwise harmless, to be ruled out in science class or in law?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that all lawmakers supporting the “critical thinking” sticker are young earth creationists and Baptists. They passed the law only to promote the Baptist faith. Let us also assume that ID is simply a version of religious belief pretending to be science. I think neither of these assumptions is true, but the decision is still a bad one despite them.

First, the sticker asked for critical thinking about evolution. Whatever the motive behind the lawmakers, the thing suggested was harmless. Without getting into motives behind the action, there is nothing on its face that could be declared harmful in the wording of the sticker. As a reminder the sticker says:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

Second, the board will not teach the classes. Unless, they (wrongly) hire only Baptist teachers, their motives could not be enforced in class. An atheist Biology teacher can handle the sticker policy as he or she deems fit. The sticker asks for an open mind on the part of the student. Since there are more Baptist students in Georgia than atheist students, the call to keep an open mind helps atheism more than theism. Since the sticker does not ask for any religious teaching on the part of the teacher, then it seems that the motives of the people passing it will not be able to be enforced. Instead, the judge has enforced secularism as the only acceptable form of knowledge in science or government. Religious people cannot tolerate this.

Of course, there will almost certainly be comments to this post using the world “Taliban.” The fact that some religious people abuse their power to do evil does not mean that religion itself is harmful or must be excluded as a motive or as knowledge. Secularism has produced horrid states, such as communist Albania, but it need not. Just as all forms of secularism do not hate liberty, so all forms of religion do not hate liberty.

What should be done? People should vote and makes decisions based on the will of the people. Minority groups should be protected from being forced to practice the point of view of the majority. However, as was the case before the 1960’s this protection should not prevent the majority from being able to practice a “public square” faith. People interested in more sustained thinking in this area should visit First Things. No secular person in Texas should be forced to pray. However, being forced to hear others pray simply is not harmful enough to justify limiting the liberty of the people.

Third, most people in support of the decision assume an ability to create a clear demarcation between religion and science. What is religious and what is science? Where can you find such definitions accepted by most philosophers of science? The decision also assumes that in our culture only secular motives can count in law. Since most people in the USA are religious, Christian, and religion deeply impacts our actions, no area in a democratic culture can be purely secular. To pretend it can be is to create an unsustainable fiction that leads to most people despising the law. Many of our laws, including criminal laws, were voted into place by legislators whose private motives could easily be shown to be forms of Christianity. To assume a law has to also have a secular motive to cleanse it from religious taint is simply a legal insult.

Finally, judging motives is a tricky business. I can imagine situations where it would be appropriate, but not this one. The schools were not being asked to promote religion. What is next? Will we throw out laws protecting homosexual persons, because the critical votes were made by legislators protecting their own private practices? Will we get rid of the death penalty, because most Southern lawmakers support it privately for religious reasons?

The judge did not attack freedom of thought or critical thinker per se. No one would do that. However, he did limit it. Evidently, a closed philosophy of science is not mandated by judicial fiat in Georgia. The good news is that the internet is not limited by law. Go read the middle-brow arguments at groups like Panda’s Thumb. Make sure you look up all the references. Do the journal articles actual argue for what the site claims or do they not? Note the comments section. Ask yourself: Is there an overwhelming secular motive for this site? Where there is a religious motive (theistic evolution) is it in the service of one sectarian version of Christianity? In short, how sophisticated is the philosophy of science there, since this is a philosophy of science issue? Go read Christianity and the Nature of Science. See if those arguments are carefully addressed or addressed at all.

The religion and science argument is mostly not about details of science. It is mostly about philosopher of science. Clever people can make the details work in any system. As the dominant view, with thousands of scientists making careers of it, Darwinism can save itself from almost any “small scale” finding. It is a matter of belief, but then asks if an alternative point of view, that like Plato in Laws X, allows for agency in Biology should be allowed? Should people be able to keep their jobs who consider it? Should publicly funded schools discriminate against their point of view? Should the people who pay the bills, overwhelmingly in favor of this point of view, be able to get the schools they want?

The LA Times has an article by Stephen Prothero which is worth reading–

Prince Harry went to a private party dressed as a Nazi. Where is our Churchill?

The future Duke of York. And he offers his apologies. Its not that I don’t recognize that even good leaders make mistakes–and certainly a young man having fun cannot be expected to always do the perfect thing. Unfortunately, the attitude that the royal family seems to have concerning this is that its just another attempt at scandal–instead of recognizing it for what it is; a symptom of dangerous forgetfulness. The actions of the Nazis were almost too horrific to believe–they sound like malicious propaganda–except that they really happened. And the fact that a Prince of England, only 60 years later, would even consider dressing up as a Nazi–let alone actually do it–is truly disturbing. Sigh.

Winston Churchill, June 4th, 1940

“Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Before beginning, I offer my apologies–I am hardly capable when it comes to blogs. I feel too much as if I am talking to myself, and though I have seen others write about really interesting things, without some response I have had a difficult time entering into the blogosphere. So, please forgive me if I am not up to the standard high quality for this blog.

My wife Sheri and I watch a lot of movies. I grew up in a household where movies weren’t merely entertainment–they were visual stories–we talked about them just as we talked about books. So, now that I am starting my own family, movies is one our favorite mediums for stories that we talk about. One of the themes that my wife and I often heatedly discuss is the idea of vigilante-ism. My wife takes the position that mercy and forgiveness must be our response to wrongs done against us. And generally, I agree–it certainly seems that defending myself is not one of the things I am commanded to do. Quite the opposite really.

But then, I return, what about defending others? Using movies as an example…movies like The Punisher, Man on Fire, National Treasure, Daredevil, Batman, etc–the heroes of the films are fighting the forces of evil outside the sanction of the powers that be–whether it is because those powers are incapable of acting effectively, or because they are corrupt and part of the problem. What then? More importantly–when would it be permissable for me, a individual, to act on the behalf of those who cannot act and for whom no one else is acting? Does having the ability to act carry with it the responsibility to do so?

It certainly seems that it would be better to steal the Declaration of Independence for the purpose of keeping it safe than to allow someone else to steal and destroy it. In the movie, National Treasure, the hero excuses his actions by recalling the decision the Founding Fathers had to make themselves. Having tried unsuccessfully to find justice with their rulers, the Founding Fathers engaged in open rebellion to establish a nation that would protect those who were otherwise unprotected. Gentlemen of property and education used those same means to become rogues and traitors–but without Washington and Jefferson, we would never have broken free from Britain. Then again–Washington gave his all to establish this nation and recreate our understanding of justice, only to relinquish his power after only eight years of leading the nation. Perhaps that is one of the reasons America has actually been successful–the leaders of the rebellion subjected themselves to the system they established–and rule by vigilantes can never last. Few would make the arguement that it is unfortunate that they succeeded–so does this shed light on the question my wife and I argue about? In the end, while I can try and judge when a vigilante was needed or not, I am unable to say if there could ever be a circumstance where the world would be better off with my sense of justice being implemented through my own strength.

Of course, I am no superhero.

Chris

Let me introduce my guest blogger for the next two days: Chris Leigh. Why Chris Leigh you might ask sensibly? Well, it could be because he is a fine student and a graduate of the Torrey Honors Institute. It might be that I am on Holiday with Hope (Disneyland!) for two days and found Chris to be a man of keen insight. On the other hand, it might be that Chris and Sheri are babysitting our kids and happen to be in the house and I could not convince Sheri to do it. You choose. (We get to see Baby Aiden, who is cute as Sheri and as loud as Chris. With luck Sheri, clever woman that she is, will also guest blog.) For some reason, I have left Chris in charge.

Also guest blogging is Lauren Malby, who is the leader of a small community of THI women. She is also a drama person (along with Chris) of some note. She is here to keep Chris in line.

So welcome Chris and Lauren . . .

the evangelical outpost: Outtakes
01.13.05

Carter writes:
However, I do take issue with him trying to say that I’m Marvin, a useless human that got bumped off in the second season. I see myself more as Gleek; if somebody’s going to be a evangelical blue monkey it should be me. After all, I’m just a bucket-carrying monkey in comparison to the esteemed Biola philosopher, Zan.

Well, I understand the pain, but I fear that Carter is not cute and the main role of Gleek is to be cute-in-a-lovable-blue-monkey sort of way. I am assured by throngs of bloggers (more or less) that Carter is not cute in this way. Making Carter Gleek would be akin to making a white person the Black Vulcan (whose name included his color so red-neck racists would not miss the point that all races could be heroes. . . Of course, such names are offensive and racist since no one would have White Superman. The only role for a black hero in those racist, but weirdly P.C. days, was for the Black Vulcan to be black. Everything else about him was incidental.) Sadly, the only real role for Gleek was to appear “cute,” which is implied by his “cute” name: Gleek. Since Carter cannot fulfill that role, Gleek is out for Carter. What should Carter be? Great blogging minds want to know.

I defer to Hugh for Carter’s superfriend identity. I also accept the Carter driven identity for Robin.

I should note that I only raise to the level of Zan, because my wife is really cute, not unlike Jayna. I am also dim by comparison to her and frequently have to be rescued by her from my silly ideas. “Gosh, Jayna, let’s jump into the shark tank and help Aquaman.” “No. Zan, let’s go stand behind the Batmobile and watch Batman beat up Mxyzptlk.” (Mxyzptlk would be Howard Dean in our alternate universe.)

the evangelical outpost

The Voice of Evangelicals writes:

The Influentials

I won’t bother to explain why I’m right and the good philosopher is wrong. Instead I’d rather speculate on what would happen if the four of them joined forces, like the Superfriends or the Tri-Lateral Commission. Imagine how influential they would be if they combined their talents and audiences.

I will also not bother further defending my choice of Phillip (Two L’s) Johnson, since the fact that Carter cannot spell his name correctly in this context means I am wrong.

However, his best idea ever is a Super-Friends team of traditional Christians. Superman is too powerful and thus too hard to choose. Confining my choices to the DC Universe I would argue that Rick Warren is the voice of the Computer that tells the Superfriends what to do, Nancy Pearcy or Anne Coulter might be Wonder-Woman, Hugh Hewitt has the Dark Knight/Batman persona given his fascination with devices such as blogs, Frank Pastore (alpha male) would be Firestorm, and that Dobson (so friendly and easy to talk to) will end up being Aquaman, who despite his useless powers was always the most accessible to the Wonder Twins.

Which brings us to the worst moment in super hero history, the introduction of the Wonder Twins to a show that I thought would be “cool.” I remember counting down the days until Superfriends would be on the air only to discover too much “education” and “morality”. . . blow things up, don’t teach me about recycling!. . . of the worst seventies sort. But the Wonder Twins, who were there so I could have someone to relate to, were the show killers. Young boys watch superhero shows to NOT be reminded they are weak and doltish. Every episode now had two folk reminding us how not super we really were. What were the producers thinking? Which means that Carter or Reynolds may actually only rise to the level of being a Wonder Twin in the Conservative Super Friends Club. . . though my role may be more like Gleek.

Here is the deal: Carter can be Marvin, if I can be the guy Wonder Twin. My wife can be Jayna and we can run around touching rings and saying “cool” stuff like: “Form of Ice Conservative” and “Form of Rush Limbaugh” to help our heroes like Hugh and Frank Pastore out.

I wonder what others think on this profound topic.

FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Judge: Remove Evolution Textbook Stickers: “A federal judge on Thursday ordered the removal of stickers placed in high school biology textbooks that call evolution ‘a theory, not a fact.’”

There are more evolutionists than non-evolutionists. The overwhelming social secularism of mainstream science acts to prevent any assault on the theory. Yesterday I spoke to a very successful scientist who had worked for years at an Ivy-quality school. He reported to me (as have many others) the total career death in science that will result from asking (even in private or in public as a matter of faith) questions about evolution.

On the other hand, Darwinists of the most extreme stripe feel free to do advocacy “scholarship” for groups like the NCSE and Panda’s Thumb. Most of this is puffery when given a good hard look, but it is hard to get the people willing to engage in this middle-brow debate. Why? It is a waste of time for the big-league ID theorists or anti-evolutionists (not the same groups). However, lower tier folk cannot survive the social shunning. Let’s face it peer acceptance, not of work but of social values, forms a vital element in career advancement. Ask African-Americans or homosexual persons in the fifties if “passing” as mainstream was important at the time. The same is true for those with very private doubts about evolution.

You can attack ID as an approach at even a very conservative Christian college and get away with it as a middle-brow academic, especially if you use a bit of respect. You cannot have the same security at any secular place.

Doubt this line of reasoning? Think that freedom of thought is a secularist tradition? Think science is “above” such social games?

Here is the sticker that so “establishes religion.” Here is the shocking few lines worth lawsuits and defying the vast sea of public opinion in a district. This is what the Republic must be saved from:

“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

Since, as everyone agrees, Evolution is a theory which some people (even if wrongly) take to be an assault on deeply held beliefs, such a warning seems a call to open-mindedness not religion. However, let’s assume that it really is Christianity (and open-mindedness at least it) disguised as a sticker. What message does it send to a young scientist when even this statement is worth a law suit? How quiet will he be when he wants to dissent from the party-line?

This puts ID and anti-evolution thinkers in a box. They end up with “stars” who speak and write about too many things. They make mistakes. Any mistake becomes grist for the “those folks are stupid” middle brow assaults. These assaults are compelling to less informed folk since they are reasonably well written and argued and often correct on the topic being covered. The “stars” have no deep bench willing to come to their rescue, even though they might be able to count scores of personal friends who could. The friends are rightly afraid that people who would sue over a textbook sticker arguing for free thought will pass them over in the highly competitive world of grants and promotion (where you need not give your real reasons for your decision) if they speak up.

All this means no one should ever be impressed by the “deep bench” argument for an assault on a dissenting view. “Most x believe y therefore y is true” is a bad argument. This will always be the case. How then to weed crazy theories, like Dan Brown’s, which also claim to be “suppressed” from the alternative views that might actually be suffering from a social repression?

There are at least three good tests that I think that remove Brown from consideration, but mean ID and other anti-evolution theories are worth some mental work if you are skeptic about ID visiting this site. First, a majority opinion in an area from the people who work in that area does matter. It does shift the burden of proof. However, does the majority resort to force (including strong social pressure) to help silence the other side? Christian schools that fire people for reading Dan Brown are the best reason to consider if Dan Brown is right. Do people holding the dissenting view really suffer careerwise? How much does the field use pure authority to silence dissent? Dan Brown’s views are not at all suppressed at studies meetings. Anyone could give a paper supporting them, and a few do give papers supporting views like his (though not his exactly). Theologians at Biola, a very conservative school, can also give papers. There is an open-market for views. Therefore, Dan Brown’s claim that his particular views are rejected due to Church oppression seems false. On the other hand, “mainstream” science will take very strong action on anyone so much as opening their mouth on evolution (lest they help creationists). Even evolutionists are “careful” not to say things in a way that might “help creationists.” There is no way such a world does not stifle dissent. Google and see.

Second, do the dissenters have relevant credentials. Some anti-evolutionists do. Some ID theorists do. When Bill Dembski writes on philosophy of science and religion, he has earned the right to do so in a very mainstream way. This is a good check against Dan Brown types who do not appear to have even read the books necessary to understand a field. To give an example, Christians who condemn Plato without reading the whole canon, at least in English, are likely blowing it if they come up with “odd” views. Of course, in an area where there is real social pressure for a view, dissent will often come from the outside from self-taught folk who do not risk career extinction in taking on the system. On thinks of Phil Johnson in ID, a lawyer mugging up the science and writing on it. At that point, one has to look at the bibliography and ask: “If the mainstream view is so obvious, often compared to gravity, why do smart folk ‘not get it? when they read the stuff they urged to read while making up their mind?” A related sign of health is if the dissenting community itself allows dissent. Does it invite critics to some of its meetings? Does it have arguments in its own conferences about the evidence? ID shows such health.

Finally, do the opponents have their own reason, outside of the field, for denying the truth of the mainstream not relevant to the controversy. In ID or anti-evolution, this seems the case. Almost all ID theorists, though not quite, are theists (Christian or otherwise). Aren’t they just trying to defend God? However, the problem is that most ID persons believe that Darwinism or mainstream science in general has wrongly excluded “purposefulness” or teleology of an important sort from Biology. This closed philosophy of science has implications for theists. Therefore, theists would be expected to react to it. The question then becomes whether the view in question (theism) is plausible. Of course few mainstream philosophers would say that “no intelligent person” could be a theist. There is a deep bench of theist philosophers and if not a majority in philosophy, they are a substantial and growing minority. If there is a God, there ought to be the freedom for those believing in his existence for strong, rational (non-scientific) reasons to ask, shouldn’t theists be allowed to explore the implications in science? The answer seems to be “yes.” There is a different from bad social reasons, not built into an issue, for why one group of people would oppose a thing. There is nothing about being “white” that naturally leads to a person being a racist. “Whiteness” does not logically lead to questions of racism. In fact, one can be “white” (assuming the existence of such an odd category) forever without ever considering that someone is “inferior” for being non-white. On the other hand, a theist cannot long be a theist without asking, “What is this God I now know exists doing or what has He done?” God exists seems inevitably to lead to wondering if God does anything that matters to me. To use a slightly different example, knowing there is an elephant in a room does not lead in itself to feelings of superiority to elephants (though other things might), but it does lead almost anyone to wonder if the elephant is about to enter their part of it. Elephants are just like that. So it is no shock that many people who wonder about evolution are theists. You don’t have to be on an anti-anti-evolution discussion group long to see many, many folk with disdain for religion and others who see it supporting their religion. A religious person who is rational then says, “Fine. I can be religious and believe in evolution, but is it true? Given my theism and my open philosophy of science should I believe it?” I think the answer to that question is no, but I also hope for freedom for anyone to disagree and to ask other questions. Opposing innocent textbook stickers is not a good way to lead to such an open society in science.

I have views that many would find wrong-headed. I state those views in this forum and try to argue for them more carefully in my class and in my professional work. However, these views may be wrong. The wonder of America is that you get to read them. Don’t trust anyone who wants to take ideas away from adults or censor them in schools without very, very powerful reasons. (I would not expose young children to the evil rantings of Hitler, for example. But such censorship should only be done with care. Surely, the notion that evolution may not be true is not this dangerous? Surely even the notion that God may have acted in space and time in ways that we can detect is not like this?) Freedom of thought is one of the greatest gifts God has given man. We must not let judges take it from us.

Let’s accept Hewitt’s notion of influence. . . roughly getting people to do what you want. This might make Oprah influential, but for what? She gets folk to buy stuff. Does she change lives in very meaningful ways? I doubt it.

Johnson changed the very vocabulary of an entire meaningful debate. This one act is more significant than every self-help book Oprah has ever sold. Is there anything more basic than origins?

Hugh Hewitt and Evangelical Outpost are debating the name of the most influential man in America. Hewitt goes with Dobson and EO picks Rick Warren. Wrong.

The most influential man on America is Pope John Paul II, but he is not an American so I assume he is not qualified. For the same reason, I assume Jesus Christ does not count either.

Rick Warren is a great man. He is very influential, but his reach does not extend outside one part of the evangelical sub-culture. Traditional church groups have not heard of him. Dobson reaches more people. On coming to our new parish, I saw a Dobson parenting book in the library. It made me at home. Any book read by the Baptists and the Orthodox makes Dobson a better candidate. Those of us who are evangelical and traditionalists find Dobson a good friend and ally.

However, let’s go beyond the obvious and try a deeper analysis. The most influential man in America is a Californian. It is Phillip E. Johnson, UC Berkeley Law Professor and intellectual gad fly. The most influential man is the man who influences the people who influence the most influential people on some issue of cosmic significance. Johnson has written books that have sold well, but of course he is not publishing machine like the wonderful Warren. He is a fine speaker, though he speaks to fewer folk in a year than the wise Dobson in a day.

On the other hand, Phillip Johnson’s books have totally reshaped the discussion for everyone on the right regarding secularism and science. The most important are Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance. He all but invented the modern intelligent design movement and he is a source for ideas for Dobson and other leaders. He changed the creation/evolutionism debate for both sides. Especially if his crusades are successful, he will reshape the way all us see the world. I think he is the living public intellectual most likely to have been read by Colson, Dobson, Warren, Rick Santorum, and perhaps even Bill Gates. If influence is getting people to do what you say, than any man who can unite the divided religious folk around a program while dividing his foes deserves mention. Even his foes use the phrases he coined and discuss the questions he raised. They hate him as he meant for them to hate him, the ultimate sign of influence.

Today I was working on a book project while my daughter Jane had her piano lesson. She decided to fool Dad by announcing that she was going to play a song for me. What followed was no longer “Lightly Row” or “Twinkle” or any other piece with which beginners delight parents. I heard a lovely piece that may have been a bit of Bach, but was certainly the best noise our piano had made in days. Of course, her clever piano teacher, Sarah, was playing. When Jane asked me what I thought of “her” playing, I went along with the game and pretended to be astounded with her improvement. This caused Jane to laugh very hard with all the superiority of youth and point out that it was really “her teacher” playing. Silly Daddy.

However, when I commented that Sarah was very good at playing the piano, Jane became serious and informed me that the piece was a duet. She too had been playing and should receive her due share of credit for the lovely sound produced. Her one note, after all, played at the right time, periodically and correctly, was part of the music. I must give her proper praise and so I did since for a seven year old in her first year she had indeed done splendidly. We laughed together and Jane went off without a further thought to the rest of her lesson.

But Daddy knew that Jane had once again taught him something important about life and ministry. He laughed with her, thought some, and then laughed out loud again.

What did I think? God allows us to play in His universe. He keeps the whole thing going, he under girds every note we play. He lets us play a note or two, since we wish it, and He is a good Father. He lets us grow up slowly, increasing our role, which is never very great. If we saw what even a President or a great thinker actually does (compared to what God is doing), we would laugh out loud.

When a great disaster strikes human beings, we are tempted to blame God. We never think that perhaps governments that refuse to heed warnings or take precautions are to blame. We never think that in a free will universe people take risks, little and great, and receive the due reward or penalty for those risks. When things go wrong, it is an act of God, since He is big enough to take the blame and not strike us down for our folly. The bad notes are all the Teachers and the Good Teacher takes the blame with a sad smile.

However, when the praise begins for a thing done right or a happy state of affairs, God often vanishes. Humans often feel absurdly pleased with themselves for arranging a sun-shine day for the party. How clever of them! Even with the token tip of the hat to the Big Man Upstairs, we are happy enough to take prizes and awards for things for which God does most of the important work. We use the bodies He made to win games and award ourselves great praise. We use the minds He made to develop Big Ideas (small to Him) and give ourselves degrees for them. We are all absurd in that sense.

Oddly, God does not care. He knows we are but seven (in the grand scheme of things) even folk who seem wise to us, like Plato. He enjoys our taking credit for a little note He lets us play. He is willing to shoulder the blame for human sin and the consequences. He is not indifferent, that is a slander. No, instead He loves us.

As I play my one note today, very small in the Great Music, it is o.k. to feel happy with what I am doing. My place is secure, because Abba Father (Daddy, if I remember my Bible well) delights in my joy.