Creationism in the Classroom
by Paul Braterman
Paul Braterman is Professor Emeritus in Chemistry, University of North Texas, and Honorary Research Fellow (formerly Reader) at the University of Glasgow. His research has involved topics related to the early Earth and the origins of life, and received support from NSF, NASA, Sandia National Labs, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He is now interested in sharing scientific ideas with the widest possible audience, and was involved in successful campaigns to persuade both the English and the Scottish Governments to keep creationism out of the science classroom. He blogs at Primate’s Progress, paulbraterman.wordpress.com.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at 3 Quarks Daily, where Braterman is a regular contributor. You can find the full article here. And we are grateful to the editors for their permission to republish.
December 20, 2025 was the 20th anniversary of the day on which Judge John Jones III handed down his decisive ruling, in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, that Intelligent Design was a version of creationism, which is religion and not science, and as such violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution and could not be taught within the publicly funded school system. Given changes in the US legal landscape, we need to ask whether this ruling is still secure. And given everything else that is happening in the US at the moment, we may wonder whether this even matters. Here I lay out why I think that the ruling is not necessarily secure, review what is at stake, and argue that it matters very much indeed.
What we now call Christian Nationalism has its roots in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign, when creationists such as Tim LaHaye fused together political conservatism, the newly adopted abortion issue, literalist Bible-based religion, and the rejection of evolution science as Humanist, un-American, and as we would now say Woke. We can see the influence of these ideas today in Trump’s administration, where at least three cabinet ministers (Pete Hegseth, Scott Turner at HUD, and Doug Collins at the VA) are creationists, as are Speaker Mike Johnson, Mike Huckabee, ambassador to Israel, and Russell Vought who at the Office of Management and Budget has enormous day-to-day influence. To these we might add Vice President Vance, and Health [sic] Secretary RF Kennedy Jr. These are not creationists, but share their disdain for the scientific and academic establishments; Vance rose to stardom by telling the US Religious Right that “the Professors are the enemy,” while Kennedy’s onslaught on established science is all too well-known. Thus creationism is closely coupled to the rest of the Regime’s war on reality.
As for the claim, pervasive in the creationist literature, that evolution acceptance involves religion denial, I should mention here that Judge Jones himself is a committed Lutheran, and has offered himself as an example of the compatibility of Christian belief and evolution acceptance, while Ken Miller, a crucial witness at the trial and indefatigable campaigner against creationism, is a devout Catholic, author of Finding Darwin’s God, and co-author of a widely used high school textbook, Miller and Levine Biology.
In 2004, creationists on the board of the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania attracted press attention by objecting to the adoption of Miller and Levine, on the grounds that it was “laced with Darwinism,” to the exclusion of creationism. This led to correspondence with the Discovery Institute and with the Thomas More Law Center, who told them about the alternative textbook (alternative as in alternative facts) Of Pandas and People, which the Center were eager to promote in order to introduce Intelligent Design into the public school system.
According to its website, the mission of the Thomas More Law Center is to
Preserve America’s Judeo-Christian heritage; Defend the religious freedom of Christians; Restore time-honored moral and family values; Protect the sanctity of human life; Promote a strong national defense and a free and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.
This places it firmly within the Christian Nationalist movement, as I described it earlier. As for Intelligent Design, it is the view that nature in general, and the appearance of new groups of living things in particular, is controlled by an unspecified designer (or Designer). This view is clearly incompatible with evolution science. To quote Pandas,
Most significantly, all design proponents hold that the major groups of organisms had their own origins.
The identity of this designer is not specified, although the Discovery Institute, which is a major promoter of Intelligent Design, seems more recently to be abandoning the pretence that the designer is anything other than God.
The board accepted copies of Pandas for the school, and also ordered the biology teachers to read to their classes a statement declaring among other things that
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
Very courageously, teachers refused to present such nonsense to their classes, since that would violate their professional ethic, and the statement was then read out by the school superintendent.
A group of outraged parents, among them Tammy Kitzmiller, promptly took the School District to court, invoking the Establishment Clause, and their cause was embraced by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Science Education, who assembled a formidable coalition of expert witnesses. The ensuing trial has been the subject of several books, and a PBS documentary, Judgement Day, still available on YouTube, in which some of the participants play themselves. There is also a moving compilation here of short statements by some of those involved.
Of Pandas and People had its own interesting evolutionary history. The academic editor, Charles Thaxton, was an Old Earth creationist, who had testified in Kansas State hearings to his rejection of common descent, while the co-authors, Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, were Young Earth creationists. The original title was Biology and Creation, and its target was the creationist market that appeared to be opening up when, in 1981, the State of Louisiana passed a law saying that if evolutionary science is to be taught, creation science should be taught as well. This law was challenged by a group of parents, teachers, and ministers, on First Amendment grounds, with support from numerous scientists, including 77 Nobel Prize winners, and in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court upheld their challenge 7-2. In doing so they invoked the Lemon test, which requires a secular purpose for government activity, and opposes government activity which advances (or indeed impedes) religion.
Undaunted, the authors simply changed the original title to Of Pandas and People, and partly rewrote the text, replacing “creation science” and “creationism” with “intelligent design”. During the discovery phase of the Kitzmiller trial, the plaintiffs obtained copies of the intermediate drafts, one even containing the expression “design proponentsists”. The Missing Link!
It is also noteworthy that the Pandas (1989) was the first book to refer repeatedly to “intelligent design,” predating the work of Phillip Johnson and the Discovery Institute in the 1990s. Thaxton and Kenyon are currently listed as Fellows of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which exists to promote Intelligent Design, while simultaneously maintaining that this is a different thing from creationism.
The Discovery Institute has repeatedly defended Pandas, and several Discovery Institute Fellows, including Stephen Meyer and William Dembski, provided expert witness statements in preparation for the Kitzmiller trial although, with the honourable exception of Michael Behe, they withdrew without giving evidence after a complicated dispute with the Thomas More Law Center.
Judge Jones now has understandable concerns about the direction of the US legal system itself. In his 2005 judgement, he also used the Lemon test, but this is no longer in effect. As he noted in 2022,
While applying the Lemon test is hardly perfect, I found it to be a sound and logical way to evaluate the case that came before me.
As a result of the recent Kennedy decision [which permitted prayer by a high school coach after games], federal judges are now directed to utilize a history-based approach in place of the more structured Lemon test when deciding cases. I would respectfully submit, as one who used the Lemon test and found it to be soundly crafted, that this new approach will lead to increasingly disparate decisions by lower court judges that will be based on ad hoc analysis and excessively subjective findings.
The result will necessarily be that the line of separation between church and state will become increasingly blurred. I am quite sure that this is precisely what the majority intended, but I would submit that we are about to enter an era where, like it or not, we will see the Supreme Court allow much more religion in the public square. Not an earthquake to be sure, but at least an aftershock of major proportions.
Remember that the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard had also been decided on the basis of the Lemon test.
Very recently, Judge Jones has told us that the case was so clear that he would rule the same today. I note however that other judges might feel differently, and that the case was made much easier to decide by what he referred to as the School District board’s “breathtaking inanity” (the existing board members were soundly defeated in an election that took place while the judgement was being written). Moreover, the increasing use by Republican-dominated States, which is where creationism tends to be strongest, of school vouchers which parents can use at their discretion, could provide a pathway whereby public money, and pupils who would otherwise be publicly educated, are funnelled towards private schools not bound by the Establishment Clause. In Alabama, this is already leading to the use in these schools of textbooks from Bob Jones University and Abeka, whose offerings explicitly describe evolution as scientifically incorrect, satanically inspired, and motivated by the wish to justify immorality. Unsurprisingly, the Abeka texts also play down the evils of slavery, and explain the rise of the Ku Klux Klan as an understandable reaction to the incompetence of State governments dominated by freedmen.
I had forgotten how bad Pandas actually is. Its title is a reference to the fact that the term “panda” is applied to two very different animals, the giant panda which is a bear, and the red panda, which is more closely related to raccoons. Although they are only distantly related, both these species have separately evolved a false thumb, a striking example of convergent evolution. All this has been known for over a century, with recent confirmation by DNA phylogenies, but for some strange reason the book chooses to present this as evidence of the inadequacy of evolution science, in favour of Intelligent Design.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contrary to [the claims in Pandas,] the data overwhelmingly support a picture of the organic world completely consistent with what they insist on calling “Darwinian” evolution, and difficult to explain in any other way. What they do not support is the authors’ flawed reasoning, understandable in first-year undergraduates, but inexcusable in textbook writers.
Kirk Cameron, The Eternal Barbecue, and Fundamentalist Proof-Texting
By William Trollinger
The Baptist News Global headline says it all: “Heads spin as Kirk Cameron gives up eternal conscious torment.”
As Rick Pidcock observes, Cameron has for many years “been one of the poster boys for white evangelicalism, including his role in Christian movies like the Left Behind series . . . his mocking of evolution through memes like the ‘crockoduck,’ and his Christian nationalist war with ‘woke libraries.’”
But now, in a December 3 podcast with his son, Cameron has suggested the possibility that the notion of hell as an eternal barbecue of sinners is wrong. Instead, he and his son suggest that it might be more biblical, more in keeping with the Christian faith, to understand that those who are not truly Christian will be destroyed by God, but they will not be eternally tortured (a belief known as “annihilationism”).
It is not clear that Cameron fully understood how much fundamentalists have invested in the idea of hell – as I noted last year, Answers in Genesis’ Ark Encounter tourist site is all about hell – and especially the idea of a hell where sinners are tortured forever. But he knows now. Fundamentalist spokespersons have exploded in response to his podcast. Here are just a few examples:
Theologian Owen Strachan: “Grieved to see this from Kirk Cameron. Scripture is abundantly clear that hell is the place ‘where the fire is not quenched.’”
Pastor Tom Ascol: “Hell is horrific. And it is eternal, otherwise it would not be an adequate punishment for sin against the infinite, holy God.”
Christian “influencer” Samuel Sey: “Kirk Cameron is dangerously wrong. . . . His belief in annihilationism is terrible. But what is even more concerning is that he suggests that the biblical view of hell makes God merciless.”
And then there is R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Seminary, with an article in World entitled: “The deadly danger of remodeling hell: Kirk Cameron’s doctrinal growing pains are a real problem.”
As Mohler sees it, the concerns about an infinite hell are simply “old hat and worn-out arguments.” But given that such arguments are coming from an evangelical “celebrity,” the possible “influence is not good, very not good, and it needs to be addressed.”
And Mohler understands himself as just the man to correct Cameron. According to Mohler, “Annihilation is not part of the picture. Hell is not a passage into non-existence, but the torment of the wicked. The truth is horrible, so the warnings are stark.” Sin “is an infinite offense against God’s infinite holiness,” and thus “eternal conscious torment is not disproportionate, much less unjust.” Instead, “it is the revelation of God’s perfect righteousness and justice.”
And then Mohler plays what he understands to be his trump card, i.e., the Bible: “The New Testament evidence for hell as eternal conscious punishment is clear, as Jesus declared in Matthew 25:46: ‘And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’” As Mohler puts it at the end of his article, “Just consider the power of Jesus’s words in Matthew 25:46. Could the truth be clearer? It is truly horrible to deny the true horror of hell.”
Interestingly, to make the same point – i.e., the Bible teaches that hell is the place for sinners to endure eternal conscious torment – Ken Ham’s Creation Museum has placed a placard with a verse from Matthew 25 in its “Jesus exhibit.” In this case it’s verse 41: “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Ken Ham: Matthew 25: 41. Al Mohler: Matthew 25: 46. The Bible says it: hell is the eternal barbecue for sinners. Case closed.
But wait a minute. There’s something odd here. What comes between Matthew 25:41 and Mattheew 25:46? If we are going to take the Bible seriously, shouldn’t we attend to these overlooked verses? That is to say, what did Mohler and Ham – these passionate advocates of biblical authority — leave out?
Here is Matthew 25: 42-45:
“I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you.” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”
Leaving aside the question of whether hell is a site of eternal conscious torment or eternal disappearance – not to mention the possibility that there is a third option, beyond violent retribution – there is the simple matter of who Jesus says will be rewarded and who will be punished at the Last Judgment. And it turns out that in Matthew 25 the answer could not have been clearer.
But in ignoring these verses we have a classic example of fundamentalist proof-texting. MAGA fundamentalist proof-texting. Best to leave out these verses, or one might conclude that the test to determine one’s eternal fate is whether or not one cared for the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner.
Borrowing from Mohler: Just consider the power of Jesus’s words in Matthew 25:41-46. Could the truth be clearer? It is truly horrible to deny that whether or not one has cared for “the least of these” will determine one’s fate at the Last Judgment.
Of course, if they were to take these verses seriously, would fundamentalists still argue for eternal, conscious torment?
Trump’s Multiple Wars
by Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania. He is now a full-time writer, and lives in Louisiana. His eighth book, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit, was the focus of this rightingamerica interview. And check out Rod’s new webpage!
The president of the United States, Donald Trump, campaigns for the Nobel Peace Prize by claiming he has ended eight wars. Yet in the disguise of being an international peacemaker, Trump creates new wars on the domestic front. He has declared war on illegal immigrants, American cities, universities, drug lords, gangs, DEI/wokeness/CRT, science, history, liberals/socialists/Democrats, and any person who dares oppose him.
War is President Trump’s default setting. Trump is a creature requiring revenge and retaliation for all slights and grievances. His speeches reek of war. “We will protect American lives,” he yells. “Your family members will not have died in vain.” He asserts a superhuman ability to protect America: “I will fight for you with every breath of my body.” He has promised, “We will eradicate Radical Islamic Terrorism completely from the face of the earth. You got to knock the hell out of them. Boom! Boom! Boom!”
Trump’s Wars Have a Prequel in President Bush
Trumpism itself is rooted in an earlier turn by George W. Bush to a new understanding of war. Trump has amplified and expanded President Bush’s rhetoric of terrorism that characterized Arab and Muslim people as evil and violent.
Robert Ivie, in “The Rhetoric of Bush’s War on Evil,” says: “George W. Bush is a Burkean devil of rhetorical seduction. His demagoguery in the service of empire masquerades as a test of Christian faith and of faith in a Christian man, calling on Americans to make their nation right with God by exterminating an international devil. His ‘war’ is a bastardization of religious thought akin to Hitler’s ‘Battle.’”
President Bush taught us that Muslims hate us. In a joint session of Congress, Bush said, “They hate a democratically elected government – They hate our freedoms – our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other …. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life.”
Issues of Race Always Present
Underlying Trump’s wars there is the explosive issue of race. He announced that the US was taking fewer immigrants from countries like Somalia and Haiti and more from countries like Norway, Sweden and Demark, which happen to be among the Whitest countries in the world.
He also unleashed a torrent of even uglier remarks. He called Somalia “filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.” He referred to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s headscarf as a “little turban” and encouraged the crowd to chant “send her back” to Somalia. Earlier he called Somalis “garbage” and said, “We don’t want them here.”
Trump’s Wars Fueled by Insecurity and Revenge
Trump responds violently to anyone who challenges his presumption that he is in control of everything, from the nuclear suitcase to the Kennedy Center awards. War has become the playground and prerogative of the president. We are at war with whomever President Trump says we are.
There’s a strange verse in Matthew’s Gospel that I believe flashes its warning lights in the face of Trump: “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and violent people take it by force” (Matthew 11:12). Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., in his commentary The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina), says the allusions to Herod in Matthew 11:7 – 8 “suggests the ‘violent’ refers to Herod.
The reality is that, when you have seen one Herod, you have seen them all. They all act the same way in their greedy, insecure, uncaring, violent insufficiency. The Herod we now face is President Trump in all his insecure, fearful, and paranoid glory.
Trump’s Axis of Evil: MAGA, Evangelicals, and White Supremacists
Wars require allies. Along with a partisan Supreme Court and a gutless Congress, Trump and MAGA share a single beating heart. Rhetorical scholar Kenneth Burke called this union “consubstantiality.” Trump and MAGA are both joined and separate. They are one in the spirit of war and violence. Trump’s mad war spirit twins with public shamelessness and evangelical certainty to fuel the ongoing wars spinning out of the White House at a dizzying rate.
So it is that Trump directs the US military to blow up boats in the Pacific off the coast of Venezuela, in the process mixing flag-waving patriotism and the fear of drugs. It apparently doesn’t matter that Trump has no such authority, that these actions violate the Constitution and constitute war crimes, and are immoral on every level. Too many Americans applaud the destruction.
How many wars must we fight to satiate the blood lust of our president? How many immigrants must we deport to win the war on immigrants? How many American cities must we invade to satisfy Trump’s need for control? How many professors and universities must we silence? How many voting rights must be shred? How many boats (allegedly drug-filled) must we blow out of the water? How many people must we kill? The president, my friend, will sell us all the wars he can.
We have our work cut out for us. James David Duncan, in The Brothers K, has an interesting reflection: “War is so damn interesting.” “The appeal of trying to kill others without being killed yourself is that it brings suspense, terror, honor, disgrace, rage, tragedy, treachery, and occasionally even heroism into a range of guys, who might, in times of peace, lead lives of unmitigated peace.”
An Alternative Story
Trump’s wars offend my human Christian sensibilities. As a follower of Jesus, I am not capable of being at peace with war. I am appalled at Trump’s war on immigrants because I believe it is a direct contradiction of God’s will. I am part of the church God has called into being to transgress the borders of the nations to provide for the welfare of the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden.
Isaiah 42, the first servant poem, connects mercy and justice, as our calling:
Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations . . . He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching. (verses 1, 4)
God gathers rather than disperses people. As Stanley Hauerwas has said, “the church is constituted as a new people who have been gathered from the nations to remind the world that we are in fact one people.” Trump’s war on immigrants blasphemes God’s gathering activities. Displacement, deportation, dispersion, division – Devil’s work.
There are Christian values on which to build an alternative rhetoric: Truth, peace, empathy, hope.
The task before us is to make peace as interesting as war. I accept the seemingly insurmountable obstacle to weaning Americans from the thrill of combat, war, violence, and power.
Basic Democratic Values
Coupled with Christian virtues, there are also democratic values on which to build: diversity, complementarity, dissent, inclusion, fairness, community, justice, mutual benefit, deliberation and compromise.
I call special attention to dissent because democracy can’t thrive with the freedom of dissent. Those who would squelch dissent are not friends of democracy. In dissent, we have the chance to rebuild a shared symbolic space where words matter, reasons matter, and deliberation matters.
In this space, perhaps we can actually hear the voice of Stacey Abrams of Georgia: “From agriculture to health care to entrepreneurship, America is made stronger by immigration, not walls.”
Part of the dissent is insisting our president do right by all our people and to respect the extraordinary diversity that characterizes our nation. As Abrams implores, all of us must “confront racism” and Trump’s wars in word and deed; we must “come together and stand for and with one another” in a “renewed commitment to social and economic justice.”
All of these values are in short supply in our war-torn nation. Democracy is endangered by our refusal to give expression to the best angels of the American spirit. Trump’s wars and its enabling racism are not democratic; they are destructive.
One value captures the spirit of both Christianity and democracy: Empathy. It is no surprise how MAGA evangelicals have viciously attacked empathy as if it were now a vice.
As George Lakoff puts it, “Empathy is at the center of the progressive moral view.” And: “Behind every progressive policy lies a single moral value: empathy.”
An alternative rhetoric of peace requires a baptism by immersion in empathy. Ivie reminds us, “I think, rhetorically speaking, what we might find most useful is to articulate a humanizing discourse as a way of empathizing with people across lines of division, that is, with people that fall into the category of the dispersed majority. Empathy is the alternative to demonizing. The dispersed majority is the target audience, those that might be persuaded.”
Clear, rational thought knows that “War is hell.” I have a letter in my files from one of my ancestors, General Kennedy (his name not his rank). He was a private in the Confederate Army and his letter to his Mama came from his experience at the battle of Vicksburg. He told her of the soldier standing next to him having his head blown off by a cannon ball and other horrors of the hell that was war.
As attracted as President Trump is to war and as appealing as General Lee’s vision of men marching into combat under fire has always been to the American spirit, it is a lie.
At Gettysburg, General George Pickett marched the 4,500 men in his division into the withering Yankee fire. But that was the last mention of beauty. The truth was told by General George Pickett when Lee ordered him to gather his battalion for another frontal assault on Union lines.
Pickett, crying, said, “I have no division now. Armistead is down, Garnett is down, and Kemper is mortally wounded —.”
For all who love our country and care for our future, the time for Trump’s wars to end has come. The dogmatic certainty of Trump and MAGA evangelicals has left us in disarray. America’s use of force may be America’s final chapter.
Now the followers of the suffering, sacrificing Jesus arise with truth as our belt, righteousness as our breastplate, the gospel of peace as our shoes, along with the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit as our single weapon. We rise with the glory of God on our lips and the Prince of Peace at our side. Here is our alternative to the rhetoric of war. Here we make our stand.
Whitewashing History: Jerry Bergman’s Review of “Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy, and the Trial That Riveted a Nation,” by Brenda Wineapple
by William Trollinger
Jerry Bergman’s campaign to invent an anti-racist William Jennings Bryan continues apace. This time, it involves a review of Brenda Wineapple’s best-selling book on the Scopes Trial.
It is telling that Bergman begins his Journal of Creation review, entitled “The Scopes Trial’s false conclusions live on,” by whining that while Keeping the Faith is ranked #9 in Amazon’s “Science and Religion” category and is in 721 libraries, his own book – The Other Side of the Scopes Monkey Trial – is #1047 in the same Amazon category, and has been placed in only 88 libraries. He blames some of the lack of attention for his book on the “greying of the creationist movement,” as “many people who had supported my work are now deceased.” He does not consider the possibility that his book doesn’t sell because, it is – as Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education has observed – the worst book ever written on the Scopes Trial.
The first part of Bergman’s review involves an extended complaint about Wineapple’s treatment of Bryan’s relationship with the Klan. As Bergman notes, she acknowledges that Bryan was not a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but she goes on to question why he did not actively oppose the organization. Bergman’s defense? The Klan was too powerful for Bryan to oppose, as in the 1920s it had five million members and dominated seven state governments. A “political career in the South, and some northern states such as Indiana, required the Klan’s support,” as “without it, holding office was difficult, if not impossible.”
This is Bergman’s defense of Bryan’s silence? He was too politically calculating (craven), too cowardly, to speak out? What about all those Americans – white and black – who did muster the political and ethical and religious courage to resist the KKK? And should we understand Bergman’s argument as a subtle defense of contemporary evangelicals and Republicans who can’t find the wherewithal to speak out against the Trump Administration’s egregious and ever-escalating immoral, racist, and anti-Constitutional actions?
Moreover, in working to distance Bryan from the KKK, and undercut one of Wineapple’s “false conclusions,” Bergman completely fails to explain why the 1920s Klan loved Bryan, to the point that they commemorated his death with the burning of crosses. Here in Dayton, the huge burning cross carried this inscription: “In memory of William Jennings Bryan, the greatest Klansman of our time, this cross is burned, he stood at Armageddon and battled for the Lord.”
If Bryan was the great civil rights champion that Bergman claims he was, how did the KKK miss the point?
In his review of Wineapple’s book, Bergman is covering much of the same ground as he did in his July 2025 Creation-Evolution Headlines article, “1925 Scopes Trial 100-Year Anniversary: Evolutionists are Still Teaching Myths.” Once again, he makes use of Willard Smith’s 1969 Journal of Negro History article, “William Jennings Bryan and Racism.” Once again he quotes from Smith’s first paragraph:
Bryan believed democracy ‘is founded upon the doctrine of human brotherhood – a democracy that exists for one purpose, [that is, for] the defense of human rights. It would be extremely difficult to select from his political career, lasting from 1890 to his death in 1925, a concept which he emphasized more than this.
And, once again, Bergman leaves out what Smith has to say in the rest of his article:
- There was a contradiction in Bryan’s “life that certainly did not square with his much-vaunted talk about democracy and rule by the people,” and that contradiction involved “Bryan’s attitude toward race relations,” attitudes that were “acceptable to the strict segregationist” (127).
- Bryan asserted that “social equality should be opposed on the ground that amalgamation of the races is not desirable . . . and amalgamation [including racial intermarriage] would be the ‘logical result of social equality” (139-140).
- Bryan attacked Theodore Roosevelt’s “appointments of Negroes to office, again [taking] the southern white’s point of view” (141).
- Bryan did not oppose Woodrow Wilson’s segregating of government workers, and opposed the 1922 anti-lynching bill then before Congress.
- In 1923 Bryan gave a speech at the Southern Society in Washington, D.C., in which he proclaimed that
Where two races are forced to live together, the more advanced race “will always control as a matter of self-preservation not only for the benefit of the advanced race, but for the benefit of the backward race also. . . . Slavery was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when – and only when – brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy . . . Anyone who will look at the subject without prejudice will know that white supremacy promotes the highest welfare of both races.
Yep. Not so surprising that the Ku Klux Klan celebrated William Jennings Bryan as “the greatest Klansman.” And not so surprising that Jerry Bergman continues to distort the historical record for ideological purposes.
And see here for my more extended treatment of Bergman’s “1925 Scopes Trial 100-Year Anniversary.”
Whitewashing History: PragerU’s Thanksgiving
by William Trollinger
PragerU is not a university. It is not an accredited educational institution. It is, instead, a slick operation that produces all sorts of right-wing propaganda through all manner of media, including short five-minute videos designed to indoctrinate Americans, including children (PragerU Kids) in public schools. As Jonathan Zimmerman, professor of the history of education at Penn, has noted, PragerU “is a political propaganda machine, and it promotes mistruths about climate change, slavery, and a whole host of other things.”
Including, not surprisingly, the history of native Americans and the European invasion.
In the five-minute PragerU video, “What’s the Truth about the First Thanksgiving?,” viewers learn from Michael Medved that, for lots of Americans, “Thanksgiving has come to mean . . . food, football, and oppression.” But the reality is that the Pilgrims were not “arrogant oppressors.” In fact, they did not “actually invade” the Indian village where they established their first settlement, “because the former inhabitants” had already “perished during three years of plague.”
No Indians alive to resist = no invasion!
Of course, what the video does not mention is that the “plague” had been brought to the Americas by the Europeans. It was quite possibly chicken pox or smallpox, for which the native Americans had no antibodies. The epidemic lasted from 1616 to 1619. and historians have estimated that (and the video leaves this out) it killed 90% of 100000 Indians in New England. Of course, and again unmentioned by Medved, this was no anomaly, as disease brought over in the “Columbian Exchange” killed perhaps 80 million (out of 100 million) native Americans. It was quite possibly the greatest demographic disaster in world history.
In other words, disease cleared New England in particular and the Americas in general, making it easier for the Europeans to move in and take over.
As the PragerU video concludes:
The only reason to treat this beloved national holiday as a day of mourning is that some foolish Americans actually think that’s a good idea. The Pilgrims knew better. They understood that people of every culture and every era can gain more from gratitude than from guilt.
The message to Native Americans could not be clearer: enough with the whining, and enough with turning Thanksgiving into a National Day of Mourning. It’s long past time to forget the broken treaties, the nefarious means by which land was taken by the invaders, the Indian boarding schools and their forced assimilation of native children, and, of course, the massacres. Instead (and this comes from another PragerU video, “Did Europe Destroy Native American Culture?”), happily accept historical inevitability, and be thankful for the great benefits you have received from Westen culture.
White people, stop apologizing, and stop feeling bad about conquering the continent. Just be happy you won!
More than this, be thankful for PragerU, and its ongoing effort to fabricate a past devoid of all those things that could make white people (and especially white males) feel uncomfortable!
History Matters: MAGA Knows It
by Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania. He is now a full-time writer, and lives in Louisiana. His eighth book, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit, was the focus of this rightingamerica interview. And check out Rod’s new webpage!
The academic discipline of history is under attack. Donald Trump and his MAGA minions are systematically eliminating any history that makes the USA look “bad.”
Anyone paying attention can tick off the obvious efforts at deconstructing history:
- dismantling all DEI efforts.
- attacking institutions of higher education.
- disrupting the Smithsonian Museum.
- defending Confederate monuments.
- returning Confederate name to military bases (under a weak subterfuge).
- removing web pages of women and African American military heroes from the Arlington National Cemetery website.
- rewriting history curriculums to make America look “great.”
- wiping out history curriculums considered too liberal.
The Trump administration has placed history – written, symbolic, visual – in the crosshairs of its weaponized assault on truth and democracy. MAGA wants Hollywood endings, not history’s realities.
The History Pickle
I believe MAGA evangelicals are in a history pickle. Borrowing from Freud’s observation that clinical perversion is noted by a “fixation,” I am suggesting MAGA evangelicals have a “fixation” about history. They are obsessed by a particular vision of history that harms their ability to see the truth. There is something damning and redemptive in looking at what has been done in the name of our God, but evangelicals can’t stand the damnation. But in attempting to erase what has been done (history), they stand naked before God’s judgment seat without redemption. They believe they are smarter than the liberals, but all this effort at hiding, erasing, deleting the records of hate, oppression, and violence as if it never happened, only increases the damnation.
The MAGA pickle puts the movement in a particular bind because they are fighting against the truth. Historians are not a tribe of radical left-wing America-haters. To think in such a Trumpian way is to ignore reality.
The history pickle really sours for evangelicals when they are exposed as those opposing truth and God. For me there is no more delightful story than the one told by historians Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson. They relate the story: Highway 20 runs across northern Kentucky and ends in the small river town of Petersburg in Boone County. The highway leads to Ken Ham’s Creation Museum. The rocks by the side of the highway testify to the truth of the earth’s age, as people wind their way to witness the fantastical and mythological tale of a 6,000-year-old earth at the Creation Museum. The rocks on the side of the road contains some of the richest fossil beds in the world. These rock and fossils are a half-billion-years-old.
As much as evangelicals despise archeologists, we owe our understanding of our ancient past to their “digs.” We build on long centuries of human evolution, and history tells our stories. It’s an odd, essential enterprise of guiding civilization into the future by the study of the past. No wonder my 60’s generation kept asking, “Can you dig it?”
I am attracted to all stories that come from African Americans, women, the previously voiceless and powerless. Imagining the Trump administration shutting down this vigorous enterprise of lifting every voice fills me with more than sadness. It fills me with the fury of dissent.
MAGA knows history matters. Otherwise, they would not be attacking history and historians with such animosity. We now inhabit a society littered with thoughts which discourage the discovery of truth about the past. Our right-leaning culture now wants a society where Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller are honored and Frederick Douglass and Justice Thurgood Marshall are exiled. Herbert McCabe observes, “The asking of radical questions is discouraged by any society that believes in itself, believes it has found the answers, believes that only the authorized questions are legitimate.”
Another pickle in the evangelical barrel: Evangelicals can’t stand to be told that they don’t have as much epistemic right as anyone else on any topic that they like to think they understand: “Who are you to tell me that I have to defer to some historian?” It is truly farcical, for instance, for an untrained, uncredentialed, history hobbyist to defy the entire American Historical Association in a complete rewriting of American history. David Barton claims fifty-two of the fifty-five original signers of the Declaration of Independence were “evangelical believers.” This would be a surprise to the founders who were Deists, Anglicans, Unitarians, agnostics, and maybe even one atheist.
Lying: A Toxin in History
Lynn Hunt, in History: Why It Matters notes how politicians lie about history: “Everywhere you turn, history is at issue. Politicians lie about historical facts, groups clash over the fate of historical monuments, officials closely monitor the content of history textbooks, and truth commissions proliferate across the globe.”
David Blight notes, “The lies have now crept into a Trumpian Lost Cause ideology, building its monuments in ludicrous stories that millions believe, and codifying them in laws to make the next elections easier to pilfer.”
Like Shakespeare’s Richard II, Trump and MAGA lie with abandon. “I am subtle, false and treacherous,” Richard boasts (1.1.37), later smiling that he uses “lies well steel’d with weighty arguments” (1.1.147).
Lies are an alien, invasive entity in the bloodstream of history. Keep insisting America was born as a Christian nation, and the lie spawns Christian nationalism, Charlie Kirk, and Seven Mountains Dominionism.
History Faces an Invasion of Emotions
The outpouring of emotions unleashes an entire barrel of pickles spilling all over our democracy: outrage, anger, jouissance, ressentiment, resentment, cruelty, disgust, hatred. The emotional juggernaut of the right has a meme: Pepe the frog. Pepe’s smug but goofy hangdog routine evolved into the perfect emblem for the Alt-Right’s approach to politics—a refusal to be shamed. Pepe’s slogan: “Feels good man!” As Lauren Berlant points out, ““[t]he Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free.”
Historians are not usually buffeted by the strange fruit of “affect” or emotions. As a rhetorician, I am aware of how pathos has bullied its way into the center of American politics and how those “touchy feely” politics are undermining the logos and ethos of American history.
Emotions now have the power to “trump” facts and evidence. “Opinion,” offered with no warrant, can “trump” the truth. Lies told with emotional fervor get more attention than historical manuscripts. Words have been replaced by memes, tweets, and clicks. We inhabit an emotional jungle.
A National Memory War
We are now engaged in a contentious epistemological war over the meaning of truth. This fight takes place within the framework of the Civil War.
“The Civil War is our felt history – history lived in the national imagination,” argued Robert Penn Warren. Blight says, “Three overall visions of Civil War memory collided and combined over time: the reconciliationist vision, the white supremacist vision and the emancipationist vision.”
The reconciliationist vision combined with the white supremacy vision to give us Reconstruction and a segregated society where blacks’ subordination was taken for granted in the North and South. Blight says, “Another way of putting it is that the Confederacy lost the war on the battlefield but won the war over memory.”
White men, North and South, made a deal to restore the Union at the expense of the newly freed Blacks. Almost as soon as Blacks had rights, they disappeared like fog on a Louisiana bayou. Jim Crow, the KKK, the Lynching Era, segregation – all became the horror of Black existence in the South. Read James Cone’s The Cross and The Lynching Tree for a grasp of how deeply embedded the white supremacist vision is in the American memory. “The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans in Jerusalem and the lynching of blacks by whites in the United States are so amazingly similar that one wonders what blocks the American Christian imagination from seeing the connection.”
Feel the lash of truth when Cone insists white supremacy is the negation of Christian theology.
With the passage of the Civil Rights bill, the emancipationist vision of Frederick Douglas became the American vision. This vision, filled with the promise of dignity, rights, and equality, has lasted for 61 years but now faces determined opposition.
America’s memory war has shifted beneath our feet like the shifting tectonic plates of a California earthquake. Emancipationists and white supremacists now face off in a battle of life and death of apocalyptic expression. Rights thought to be carved in stone are being chipped away by an administration dedicated to white supremacy.
Using its 1875 playbook, the white supremacist vision once again has aligned with the reconciliationist vision to undo the emancipationist vision. Trump would have never won the presidency with only MAGA support. He had to win the hearts of “reconciliationists” who were amenable to his promise to make America great again.
MAGA is succeeding after decades of failure because they now have the power of the presidency in their hands. Paula White and Robert Jeffress and the Pentecostals are no longer props in Oval Office photo shoots. They are the shot callers in a demolition of history, truth, and equality. Adam Laats, a historian of education at Binghamton University, noted “Never before has this kind of fervor from the right owned the Oval Office.”
The attempt to replace solid history curriculum with Barton-inspired fables and Prager University fantastical videos making a hero of Columbus is only the beginning of the birth pangs of a movement feeling the fervor of unmitigated political power.
Historians are Truth Tellers
Historians have become the prophets who interpret the present by the past. They are what the Greeks called the parrhesiastes. They are the equivalent of the saints who have for centuries protected the church from the beast kings (Daniel) who would rule our lives in fear.
Truth wins. Historian Jill Lepore says, “Most forms of tyranny do come to an end.” As Vaclav Havel demonstrated, dissent takes down most tyranny.
If the power silences the historians, a vast army of ordinary folks, will carry the torch of truth. They will whisper the truth in those private gathering spaces, “hush harbors,” where they are free to speak. They will preserve the truth. Like those nameless, faceless scribes who faithfully produced the scrolls of sacred scripture, the truth bearers will keep truth alive.
If all the voices were silenced, the rocks of creation would cry out. “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out’” (Luke 19:40).
As a preacher, I can think of no better way of ending than with a doxology on the universality of the voices of Truth.
Praise the Lord from the earth,
you sea monsters and all deeps,
fire and hail, snow and frost,
stormy wind fulfilling his command!Mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars!
Wild animals and all cattle,
creeping things and flying birds! (Psalm 148:7 – 9).
Questions Creationists Ask: A Journey from Science Denial to an Evolutionary Perspective
by Terry Defoe
Terry Defoe was educated at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Sociology, 1978), Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (M.Div., 1982), and the Open Learning University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Psychology, 2003). Defoe served as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. He has been interested in the science / faith dialog for more than 30 years. His intellectual journey took him from young earth creationism to an evolutionary perspective. Details at www.evolvingcertainties.com. In 2018, two years after he retired, he published Evolving Certainties: Resolving Conflict at the Intersection of Faith and Science, which received endorsements from scientists affiliated with the BioLogos Association, including a Foreword from its first president, biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma University, as well as scientists holding membership in the American Scientific Affiliation, a group Defoe joined in 2019.
Abstract
For many years, the theory of evolution has been at or near the top of the list of controversial issues in the evangelical church. This is especially true among U.S. evangelicals over the last 100 years. A cottage industry has grown up, focused on defending evangelical orthodoxy, which claims that the Bible is inerrant in every topic it deals with, including science. This paper is a brief account of a journey from young-earth creationism to an evolutionary point of view. It includes a summary of the kinds of questions asked, and important insights gained along the way. It is intended as a guide for others who are, or who may be contemplating, travelling that same road.
Introduction
I was ordained in 1982, in a very conservative Lutheran denomination. That denomination, for example, discourages prayers with other Christians because that prayer could indicate greater agreement on doctrinal issues than actually exists. And so, rather than minimizing, or appearing to minimize the doctrinal issues, prayer with other Christians is discouraged altogether.
It’s helpful to consider the kinds of arguments against evolution and biological science that I was hearing during those early years of ministry. A sample of my questions at the time
includes: .
- What exactly does my denomination teach about creation?
- What am I as a pastor expected to uphold and proclaim?
- Is it possible for me to change my mind on any of these things?
- And if it was, would it be possible to indicate that publicly, without reprisal?
At the time of my ordination, I promised to subscribe to my denomination’s views about creation. This topic was not a high priority for me at the time. I was “opted in” but there was no check box allowing me to opt out [while remaining on my denomination’s clergy roster!]
From the earliest days of my ministry I have been an advocate for responsible stewardship – that is, for looking after the gifts that God gives his people. But at this point I hadn’t considered the importance of the responsible stewardship of knowledge as well, and that includes scientific knowledge.
For several years before enrolling in seminary, I had spent time in Pentecostal circles, known in those days as the charismatic renewal. At that time, I had some half-baked ideas about science. I believed, for example, that science was essentially atheistic. I believed that science was a form of idolatry. I bought into the idea that science was inherently antagonistic to religion and that the so-called warfare thesis was an accurate description of the relationship between science and faith.
Cognitive Dissonance
I was ordained in 1982. Seven years later, in late 1989, I began researching the literature on science and faith. As noted above, I had many questions and few satisfactory answers. The answers I did receive from my own denomination were, in my opinion, one-sided and often evasive. The intellectual journey that began back in 1989 continues today, 36 years later.
Psychologists describe “openness to new experience” as an important personality trait – a trait that varies over a spectrum from one individual to another. I score high on that trait which helps to explain why the prospect of embarking on this journey was – and remains – exciting to me. Looking back, I can now see that a major motivator for my research was a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological theory first proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957, describing the mental discomfort experienced by individuals confronted with new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs. I began my survey of the literature with more questions.
- I wanted to know the age of the earth and about deep time.
- Was life created in six days or over a very long period of time?
- Was creation complete or ongoing?
Flood Geology
I learned that young-earth creationism had its beginning in the nineteenth century in the context of the Seventh-day Adventist [SDA] Church in the U.S. SDA prophet Ellen G. White experienced a vision in which she claimed she had been shown that the Biblical flood caused massive changes in the earth’s geology, including the deposition of countless fossils. White’s predictions were questioned, however, after she predicted – incorrectly – the return of Jesus Christ on October 22nd, 1844. My research revealed that White’s flood geology, which is at the center of creation science, was given its current form at the turn of the 20th century by Canadian self-taught geologist George McCready Price.
Evangelicals typically respond to mainstream science in one of three ways: ignore, attack or engage. I have consistently chosen the latter – engagement — in my ministerial career. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, has consistently chosen the second – attack – overtly denigrating science and scientists. And the reason they do this is not so much based on the science itself, its data, or its evidence, but out of loyalty to a Bible doctrine called inerrancy which is a high priority for U.S. Evangelicals.
Presuppositionalism
A critical component of the young earth creationist worldview is presuppositionalism, the view that should science and faith differ, it is always science that’s in the wrong. Young-earth creationism [YEC] is simultaneously an attack on science and a defense of the Bible, as most evangelicals understand it. YEC’s believe that their proprietary interpretation of scripture’s creation accounts is inviolable. They believe that the Bible is a book of science as well as a book of faith.
Biblical science is ancient science, and ancient science is phenomenological—that is, based on what the eye can see and on limited human abilities—without the benefit of technology. Many evangelicals are convinced that the Bible has scientific discoveries written into it, put there by inspiration as a way of reassuring believers that the Bible is in fact inspired. Most YECs believe that science and faith are naturally opposed to one another and that science has a long-term goal of destroying the Christian faith. Psychologists call this catastrophism, that is, making a non-issue into a catastrophe.
Before I entered seminary, I was warned that I ought to be careful about science and not buy into what it was saying about evolution. Evolutionary science, I was told, would seriously erode and could potentially destroy my faith.
As far as evangelicals are concerned, science is either contested or uncontested. Most science is uncontested — it causes evangelicals no theological concerns. Some science, however, is highly contested — typically biological science and the theory of evolution. It seems odd to me that individuals would be against evolution but in favor of almost everything else that science has accomplished. Anything that would challenge their proprietary interpretation of scripture’s creation accounts is contested, while everything else is fair game.
Young-earth creationist leaders are more than willing to take advantage of the lack of scientific literacy among their constituency. In addition, YEC’s often cherry-pick quotes from mainline scientists, ignoring the original context, turning the message into something very different from the author’s original intention. It’s ironic that those who complain loudly about “fake news” will so often be captivated by the “fake science” promoted by YEC.
There is an unfortunate lack of integrity among YEC leadership both in terms of message as well as methodology.
Young earth creationism is a major liability to the Church. Many young people have left the church, convinced that the Church is inflexible and out of touch – living in an alternate reality. Many church leaders avoid responsibility in this area by remaining silent. Young-earth creationism is imprisoned in a pre-scientific worldview. It’s not surprising that what young people learn about science at church is often quite different from what they learn in a university classroom. I call the resulting cognitive dissonance, “science shock.” Science shock leaves young people wondering whether the church can be trusted in other areas if it cannot be trusted in the area of science. Many young people believe that they must choose science or faith. They cannot have both. Many evangelical denominations do not tell the whole story to their people.
Copernicanism
It’s significant that as the Scientific Revolution was gaining momentum in the early 16th Century, Nicholaus Copernicus claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe. He argued that the earth circled the Sun rather than the other way around. Theologians of that day said that Copernicus was wrong because he was proposing a view that disagreed with their interpretation of the Scriptures. They quoted verses such as Psalm 93:1 that describe the earth as immovable –
The lord reigns; he is robed in majesty. The lord is robed in majesty and armed with strength. Indeed the world is established firm and secure. It cannot be moved.
Psalm 104:5 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 carry similar thoughts. Copernicus put Christian leaders on the horns of a dilemma. Was he correct? If so, what did that mean for the exegetes and their interpretation? How could they modify their interpretation without causing problems for themselves and the Church?
Divine Intervention
A critical issue in this discussion is the question of divine intervention. Is God involved in creation? I have come to believe that the initial spark of life was God’s work, that it was a singularity, a unique event in history very similar to the singularity called the Resurrection of Christ. In both instances God stepped into history and did something totally unheard of. I’ve come to the conclusion that God is directly involved in maintaining his Creation. And should that maintenance stop, chaos would return. Science in general has no problem with divine intervention because it takes place below the surface and cannot be measured scientifically or falsified. Again, many evangelicals reject modern science, not on the basis of scientific facts and evidence, but on the basis of the social pressure that would be brought to bear should they change their views.
Divine intervention is the key to a proper understanding of the relationship of science and faith. The point of view that I have adopted is similar to a scientific theory called orthogenesis. Orthogenesis proposes that evolution has an innate tendency or driving force that compels organisms to evolve in a straight line progression towards some definite goal or predetermined end point. God has a plan for his creation and that plan is unfolding according to his will.
Living Color
I remember watching a series of YouTube videos about a very special kind of eyeglasses.
These expensive eyeglasses enable individuals with color blindness see color for the very first time. These glasses are expensive so family members we’ll often get together and chip in to be able to buy them. What families will often do is invite the individual to a family meeting. They will give them this gift, ask them to open the package and put the glasses on. The moment they do that, they will often break down, overcome by emotion because they are seeing color for the very first time and they realize what they’ve been missing.
Something similar occurs when individuals abandon YEC pseudoscience and take on an evolutionary point of view. We have seen that the real reason for young-earth creationism is a misguided defense of the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy which causes evangelicals to bend over backwards in an effort to show the world that the Bible is indeed a book of science as well as faith. Inerrancy is a basic evangelical doctrine. But some scholars are proposing that inerrancy ought to be limited to the spiritual truths that the Bible contains. It could very well be that young-earth creationism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible is all about.
Conclusion
Christian pastors are accountable for the accuracy of what they claim. Church members trust them to convey accurate and reliable information. The information that YEC shares is anything but accurate and reliable. Jesus of Nazareth was correct when he said that putting new wine into old wineskins could easily cause the old wineskins to rupture. Pastors are under intense pressure to adhere to the party line, as it were. Should they change their views publicly, they are liable to be shown the door. As a result, many pastors live in the closet and are very discreet about what they say and to whom they say it.
The more I studied this issue, what science had to say made increasing sense to me. Whenever I considered the possibility of adopting a pro-evolutionary point of view, however, a kind of guilt swept over me based on the thought that I was somehow betraying my ordination vows by taking on a perspective that was unacceptable to my denomination. But that didn’t deter me. I still felt driven to check these things out.
In 2016, I published a book on science and faith titled Evolving Certainties: Resolving Conflict at the Intersection of Faith and Science. That book tells my story. It deals with biblical, literary, and hermeneutical issues. Since the book was published I’ve made many new friends, people who are able to balance their faith with their science, including members of the American Scientific Affiliation which is made up of several thousand PhD scientists from around the world who are evangelical Christians at the same time. I have come to believe that it is certainly possible – and God-pleasing — to balance faith and evolutionary science. Evangelicals have been kicking this can down the road for many years, and needs to deal with this divisive issue once and for all.
There are many who are on a similar journey and many more who are considering it. I would hope that this paper is an encouragement to carry on – and, most importantly, to tell others what you discover along the way. There’s an old Russian proverb that says you should measure your cloth seven times before you cut it because once it’s cut it is done. And that certainly applies to this issue as well. Expect questions and criticism. No dogma ever rolled over and gave up without a fight. As I said in the preface to my book,
I truly believe that faithfulness to a particular theological heritage may require challenging that body of doctrine from time to time. Martin Luther knew this truth and acted upon it, despite great danger to life and limb. At the end of the day, this journey has impressed upon me the critical importance of hermeneutics: accurate interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. If at the end of the day our interpretation of the Scriptures is more accurate, our doctrines have been appropriately reviewed, our respect for science has grown, and our personal faith has been enriched, then the excursion outlined in this book will have been worthwhile.
Evolution and Society since Darwin: Teaching History and Drawing Lessons from the Past
by Kristin Johnson
Kristin Johnson is a professor in the Science, Technology, Health and Society Program at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington. Her recent books include The Species Maker (an historical novel set in the era of the Scopes Trial), Darwin’s Falling Sparrow: Victorian Evolutionists and the Meaning of Suffering, and Imagining Progress: Science, Faith, and Child Mortality in America. She is currently writing a book about why naturalists taught courses on eugenics.
(Editor’s note: Having read The Species Maker, I can attest that it is a wonderfully thought-provoking novel. With the Scopes Trial as background, Johnson expertly weaves in a good deal of science while providing a very nuanced treatment of the cultural conflicts over evolution and its implications.)
As an historian of biology, I have taught a course entitled “Evolution and Society since Darwin” at a small liberal arts college in the Pacific Northwest for almost two decades. Like all my research and teaching, the course is designed to help students add history to their intellectual toolbox for navigating debates that concern science.
Given history is about human beings, I begin each semester by reminding students that doing good history demands that we attend to both the tragedies and triumphs of the past, especially if we wish to understand the origins of challenges and debates in the present. I warn them that the “bad and the ugly” are at times very bad and very ugly via direct quotations from Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man on the Irish, sex differences, and “lower races,” that the triumphs are extraordinary via a graph of child mortality rates over the past two centuries, and – finally – that we must hold both the good and the bad in our heads at the same time via a graph of U.S. child mortality rates parsed into racialized groups.
Inevitably, despite my reminder, students who adore science (often but not always STEM students) are nervous we will just focus on the racism, sexism, and ableism evident in the history of evolutionary thinking, while those who are wary of the sciences (often but not always humanities students) are concerned we will be turning scientists – like Darwin, with whom the course begins – into heroes. And each group of students is wary of the other.
My primary means of explaining how we can actually get intellectual work done amid such differences and learn something about the past (as opposed to just restating our own beliefs and values with respect to science) is to discuss the difference between normative and descriptive analysis and explain which kind of analysis we will be using and why.
Normative analysis, I explain, is what philosophers, theologians, and (often) scientists do when looking at the past. When reading Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man, for example, normative analysis involves determining whether Darwin’s account of human evolution is right or wrong, using criteria established by the philosopher, theologian, or scientist. Historians, by contrast, pursue descriptive analysis. And as historians (which I tell them they all must be by Week 3), we will be reading excerpts from The Descent of Man neither to condemn nor to praise, but rather to describe, explain, and understand Darwin’s claims about the origin of human beings in historical context. We will focus, I explain, on questions like the following: How and why did Darwin come to the conclusions he did? How did his cultural and social context influence his conclusions and vice versa? How were his ideas received and why?
One example of how the historian’s demand that students be descriptive rather than normative operates in practice is that my students are not allowed to use the word pseudoscience when doing historical analysis. I explain that, while “but this is pseudoscience!” may be an appropriate normative gut response to certain texts, inevitably the word pseudoscience reflects present-day, normative concepts of what science is or should be. Such statements might help us clarify our own definition of what counts as science and why, but the term pseudoscience does not help us understand, for example, why so many biologists not only defined eugenics as a science but included courses titled “Eugenics” within biology curricula.
Once they have this language of “normative versus descriptive” analysis, students are consistently (and impressively) able to navigate their own responses to the past and get to work doing good history. That said, at some point in every class I teach Two Questions – Two Challenges – are inevitably raised as students wrestle with the course’s methodological “ground rules.” At some point, a thoughtful student inevitably asks the First Question: How is it possible to avoid our normative beliefs from influencing our descriptive account of the past? My very unsatisfactory answer (after noting this is one of the most important questions they can ask!) is that sometimes it’s impossible, and – depending on the topic – even ethically undesirable. What matters, I explain, is that now you are aware of the very different goals of descriptive (as opposed to normative) questions and analysis. As a result, you are more likely to notice when normative values, beliefs, and assumptions are influencing your claims.
The Second Question arises as the course proceeds and students are faced with actually applying historical methods to prior belief systems and knowledge claims. It has definitely been posed more often in recent years, as I continue to ask students who are committed to social justice activism amid a polarized political environment to analyze passages like the following descriptively and in historical context.
Man is the rival of other men; he delights in competition, and this leads to ambition which passes too easily into selfishness. These latter qualities seem to be his natural and unfortunate birthright. It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation. ~ Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Not surprisingly, students have strong reactions to passages like this, in which Darwin both calls on supposed mental differences between the sexes and speaks casually of “lower races.” To help them navigate Darwin’s thinking, I pair this passage with the work of historian Evelleen Richards (via her classic article “Darwin and the Descent of Woman”). Richards places Darwin’s claims in historical context by systematically describing his campaign to break down the barrier between humans and non-human animals (sex differences existed in other primates, so why not humans?), his personal life (Darwin had few personal experiences that inspired him to question Victorian gender roles), and the pervasive sexist ideology of the Victorian era (one does not gain much historical insight, Richards argues, by labeling Darwin a sexist in a time period in which almost everyone held similar views). Then, using Richards’s work as a model, we try to carry out the same kind of analysis of Darwin’s conclusions regarding (as he writes) “the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.”
As we proceed through The Descent of Man, the Second Question is inevitably asked: What is the point of reading all this? Isn’t explaining just a means of excusing Darwin for being sexist and racist? When we contextualize this book, are we actually justifying beliefs that were evil and wrong?
It’s an excellent question that arises from students’ deep commitment to changing the world and their awareness of the persistence of sexist and racist beliefs in the present. I respond by noting that I could, indeed, have assigned a piece that ridicules Darwin for being ignorant, sexist, racist etc. There are plenty of writings that call Darwin to task for not adhering to the author’s own (religious, scientific, or both) values from the Right and the Left. But then we would not be reading (or doing) historical research. And why does that matter? I remind them of the evidence Darwin confidently cited as evidence that men are by nature superior in intellect than women:
If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music, —comprising composition and performance, history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. ~ Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Students are always quite bewildered by Darwin’s use of this list as evidence of a difference in intellectual power between men and women. They quickly highlight the obvious factor Darwin missed: an educational system which deprived women – and any human being who was not white and of a certain class – access to all the things that one needed to obtain ‘higher eminence’ in any field in Victorian Britain. I then ask: Okay, so how can we make sense of the fact that Darwin – who all students agree was a pretty brilliant man – was so blind to something we take as self-evident? Can we learn more from Darwin’s “mistake” beyond the obvious fact that he held different beliefs and values than a student at the University of Puget Sound in 2025?
Students know by this point in the course that they have a lot more work to do than just concluding Darwin was ignorant, stupid, or morally bankrupt. As we leave The Descent of Man and proceed forward in time – from the U.S. eugenics movement and the evolutionary synthesis to debates over sociobiology and Intelligent Design – they know where to go for help: primary sources with the aid of careful historians of science.
What am I hoping my students learn from doing good history? First, here is what I do not think the lesson of descriptive, historical analysis is: “Darwin was a man of his time.” I’ve never understood such statements. After all, what else can anyone be but “of their own time”? Furthermore, assuming that the lesson of historical work is that “Darwin was a man of his time” ignores the fact that some of Darwin’s contemporaries made the same criticisms students make (especially with respect to the hierarchical thinking embedded in much – but not all – of The Descent of Man). John Stuart Mill pointed out, for example, that claims about natural sex differences were absurd unless someone had actually run the experiment of raising boys and girls exactly the same. The existence of criticisms of Darwin’s claims regarding both gendered and racialized differences demands that students add the following questions to their effort to make sense of Darwin’s confident claims: Why did Darwin – who was well aware of the tendency to remember facts and thoughts favourable to his theory and forget those that were unfavourable – set aside some criticisms? Who did Darwin believe he needed to pay attention to and why? Most importantly, whose knowledge counted in debates over the “scientific” status of different groups and why?
Wrestling with these questions help us understand what critics of hierarchical thinking were up against (whether the critics or the hierarchical thinking were rooted in evolution, creationism, or complex combinations of both). Wrestling with these questions also culminates in a pretty compelling argument for diversity and inclusion in STEM, on the grounds that more socially representative scientific communities are better at noticing when good scientists are falling short of their extraordinary ideals. Description can elide into Normative indeed!
So, what do I hope students learn from my course? I have done my job if, by the end of “Evolution and Society since Darwin,” students adopt historical methods within their toolbox for navigating science in the present. And I don’t mean by becoming historians or reading history books for the rest of their lives. Rather, I mean that they have learned methods for (and embraced the value of doing) two things: First, the value and means of at least trying to “get in the mind” of another human being, and Second, the importance of noticing how one’s own values, beliefs, and assumptions are influencing how one sees the world.
I believe learning how to do good, evidence-based history (as opposed to myth-based history that turns the scientists of the past into either heroes or villains for present-day purposes) improves science education because STEM students must practice interrogating when and how their own assumptions and values influence their response to claims and debates. I have done my job if a student starts asking: “What am I assuming that, 50 years from now, people will look back upon and declare unscientific or pseudoscience? What am I taking for granted? What am I ignoring? How do my context, experience, and hopes influence what I notice and believe?” And if they realize they can and should apply these questions not just to science, but to any controversy in which the stakes in understanding one’s own position and that of one’s opponents are high.
This work matters to me in today’s polarized political environment because I believe history trains students how to construct better maps of both their own positions on science and positions with which they disagree. Ultimately, doing history is an exercise in dislodging our gut responses to stances (as rational/irrational, good/evil, logical/crazy, informed/ignorant, etc.) in the name of developing more complicated analyses than simplistic dichotomies allow. The demands (including descriptive analysis of historical context) upon which this complex analysis relies is not a demand that students be neutral with respect to knowledge claims or policies of either the past or the present. Rather, it is a methodological position driven by a belief that, like medical diagnosis, the claims of those interested in defending and improving science and scientific institutions must be as informed and as accurate as possible in order to be effective.
Roosevelt the Good Neighbor vs. Trump the Nihilist
by Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania. He is now a full-time writer, and lives in Louisiana. His eighth book, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit, was the focus of this rightingamerica interview. And check out Rod’s new webpage!
Our nation stands at the crossroads of nihilism and neighborliness. In service to the present, history always stands ready to guide us in haphazard times.
The “good neighbor” policy of President Franklin Delano Roosevelet contrasts sharply with President Donald Trump’s “You are my enemy” policy. Roosevelt’s policy, rooted in a biblical concept of the goodness of humanity shines in the darkness of Trump’s nihilism.
Before I continue with my comparison of Roosevelt to Trump, I must make a few historical disclaimers concerning Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policy. Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policy had its limits, as Roosevelt, the consummate politician, was too pragmatic to literally make literal the politics of Jesus. Unlike MAGA evangelicals insistent cry of President Trump as “God’s chosen one,” Roosevelt was at heart a master politician with a shrewd understanding of pragmatism.
At times he acted more like “Big Brother” than good neighbor. Roosevelt’s vision of a national neighborhood allowed him to accrue power in the federal government and in the office of the presidency. Moreover, in his New Deal programs, Roosevelt often appointed the most fiscally conservative directors he knew would keep spending at a reasonable level. His pragmatism shows him as less than a national “Good Samaritan” neighbor.
He also underwrote the instantiation of democratic global ideological hegemony under the guidance of a strong United States.
Moreover, Roosevelt’s hierarchies reveal the contours and limits of his neighborhood. His neighborhood didn’t include advances in Civil Rights. African American homes were more likely to have photographs of Eleanor than Franklin in their living rooms, and for good reason. And it was Roosevelt who authorized the notorious internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
All this said, I would contend FDR’s “good neighbor” policy comes closer than any other attempt to bring about the kingdom of Jesus summarized in Jubilee.
Rhetorical scholar Mary Stuckey, in The Good Neighbor: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Rhetoric of American Power, puts it this way: “To the extent that FDR had a philosophy, his political principles can usefully be understood as enacting the principles of neighborliness, articulated through the Golden Rule, and directed at ameliorating national problems of social and economic inequality.”
In contrast, President Trump is a demolition expert. He has announced plans to meet with his budget chief to determine which “Democratic agencies” he could try to cut, relishing the government shutdown as an “unprecedented opportunity” to achieve his agenda. He has canceled $16 billion in infrastructure improvement in New York as revenge for Democrats not supporting his agenda. A New York Times headline speaks volumes: “White House Uses Shutdown to Maximize Pain and Punish Political Foes.”
While MAGA evangelicals claim national revival is coming, President Trump releases the four horsemen of the political apocalypse: free-market fundamentalism, militarism, authoritarianism, and social mayhem.
He keeps promising MAGA national salvation, but it’s the opposite of salvation. “Demolition” is his primary theme. Having unleashed MAGA’s uninhibited feelings of fear, anger, and hatred, he now makes moves to destroy the administrative state. Robert L. Ivie says, “It is a seductive spectacle of the wrecking ball well adapted to a media culture of fast-paced, combative entertainment.”
Trump uses the wrecking ball to defund the social safety net and nondefense agencies, to dismantle regulations, to increase deportation of immigrants, and to wipe out DEI.
The contrast could not be starker or more critical. I believe “the good neighbor” policy is the most important theological and political question in existence.
Being a good neighbor was a required virtue in my childhood. My father crawled under the houses of our neighbors to “fix” their plumbing – no charge. He was a good neighbor. Food showed up at the door of a sick family because people were good neighbors. People helped one another “get in” the crops, find a lost calf, or return a herd of hogs lost in the swamp.
Today, not so much. Gated communities, vicious policies, busy lives, self-centeredness, social media – all conspire against good neighbor practices. But the deeper malady in the mix is nihilism – a belief in nothing and an urge to destroy everything. Nihilism insists that life is meaningless. There is nothing to approve of in the established social order. Destruction on an apocalyptic scale seems the only way to deal with a depraved culture, or so claim our nihilists.
The Theological and Biblical Neighbor
Anyone with even residual Christian training knows the theological importance of being a good neighbor. The neighbor concept is important enough to find a place in 2 of the 10 commandments – “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16) and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female slave, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17).
Scripture pays serious attention to economics in relationships to the neighbor.
“If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. Deuteronomy 15:7
The good neighbor vision is one of abundance: there’s enough for everyone. The nihilist vision is one of scarcity. Empathy and sharing are out of the question for MAGA evangelicals. They are currently having a “pity party” attacking the idea of empathy.
A Good Neighbor Blast from the Past
The width of Roosevelt’s good neighbor policy encircled the globe. The length of his good neighbor policy went the long distance of caring for the poor. The depth of his good neighbor policy reached into the slums and rural backwoods of the nation. The height of his good neighbor policy reached the throne of grace to protect and empower all citizens.
According to Roosevelt, the government was your neighbor. This is a far cry from President Reagan’s belief, “The government is the problem.” And an even longer distance from Trump, “I really believe in getting even,” and “I hate my enemies.” In a dark and threatening moment, Trump told our nation’s military leaders to prepare for combat against “the enemy within” – fellow Americans.
Roosevelt conceived of the nation as one large neighborhood. It ought not to be hard to tell the difference between the people who believe the nation is a neighborhood and a president who thinks America is a hell hole, a miasma of murdering immigrants, a horde of deep state operatives, a collection of losers, a dark and foreboding crime wave.
I believe that America holds the potential for a majestic, diverse national neighborhood with a vision premised on rights, freedoms, and democratic participation as hinted at in its founding documents.
I am persuaded by the power of neighborliness. This nation has been at the end of its rope before, and in the Great Depression, the virtues of Roosevelt’s good neighbor policy were evident.
But as American historian Robert McElvaine says, “the values of community, cooperation, prudence, and sacrifice that enjoyed such an upsurge in the thirties have since then been almost completely submerged by those of acquisitive individualism.”
The virtues of cooperation and community – the good neighbor virtues – have usually been more associated with women than men. The system that failed in the 1930’s was a “manly man” system of every-man-for-himself, the-devil-take-the-hindmost competition and acquisitive individualism. Its collapse discredited the more male approach to the world.
For example, toxic masculinity threatens America. Instead of being neighbors, we become anti-social Darwinists – “only the strong survive.” A chest-thumping, shoot-from-the-hip fantasy of bootstrapping individualism and unfettered capitalism will not produce good neighbors. This manly man charade isn’t big on cooperation. It breeds competition and division.
The toxic “manly man” – rooster crowing on the top rail – has never received a more public hearing than Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s address to America’s military leaders. He condemned wokeness: “We are done with that shit.” He defied the Geneva Convention and said US troops would kill noncombatants, an offense previously understood to be a war crime. He held up a male fitness requirement and pranced around like he was the ruler of the world.
In the 1930’s the American people lost faith in their institutions. Roosevelt rebuilt that trust. Today, a large segment of the American people have lost faith in our institutions. The ideology of nihilism is tearing down what little faith is left.
Roosevelt, in speaking so often, and so personally, to the American people, encouraged them to look to the federal government and to the president for help. The belief that Roosevelt stood with the nation’s working people against the capitalists and others who profited from the misery of the poor—was pervasive and deep. One Roosevelt supporter said the president is the first person in the world who knows “my boss is a sob.” Stuckey argues this was central to the Roosevelt presidency.
The Critical Neighbor Question
The war over immigrants makes “Who is my neighbor?” the most critical of all American political questions. Leviticus 19 shows the Jews arguing over this question for generations. In the oldest tradition of the text, the “neighbor” is one’s fellow Jew. Many generations removed from this provincial concept, the neighbor becomes a much larger circle: the neighbor becomes the alien who lives in Israel (Leviticus 19:33 – 37).
This is the same argument Americans are having now. For some, the neighbor is the next door neighbor, the kin, the people who are alike. For others, the neighbor bond extends to the alien who resides with us. This Levitical argument dominates our political debate.
Any talk about neighbors must deal with Jesus. He commands his followers to be neighbors to the world. The parable of the Good Samaritan makes clear that the best neighbor may be a non-Christian, a foreigner, an immigrant, a person of color, or a poor person.
The “Good Neighbor” of Leviticus and “Good Samaritan Neighbor” of Jesus needs to ring across America. Let good neighbors ring in small villages and townships, down dirt roads in Mississippi and Vermont, across the wide expanse of the Kansas prairie as well as our vast urban centers.
In the bayous of Louisiana, on a Saturday night, at a neighborhood restaurant you will find a large group of Cajuns “passing a good time” – eating shrimp, drinking beer, and dancing in the moonlight. Everyone dances. With everyone. Grandparents with grandchildren. It’s a celebration of family, life, pure goodness.
There are (at least) two forces competing for our souls: nihilism and neighborliness. One focuses on authoritarianism, bullying, threatening, dissolving alliances, insulting, demeaning, and hurting others. The other instigates a virtuous people intent on compassion, kindness, cooperation, mutual respect. If we can have more “good neighbors” and fewer nihilists, we’ll all be better off.
On the Cusp of Another Missouri Execution
by William Trollinger
As I write this on Monday morning, Lance Shockley is scheduled to be killed at Potosi Correctional Institution by the state of Missouri at 6pm on Tuesday for the 2005 murder of Highway Patrol Sergeant Carl Graham, Jr..
Perhaps Missouri’s Governor Mike Kehoe will relent in response to very serious questions about whether Jason Shockley (who has consistently maintained his innocence) actually committed this crime, as there is no definitive evidence – DNA, fingerprints, eyewitness testimony — linking him to this killing. This is combined with the inadequacy or ineptitude of his defense attorney, who refused to question the jury’s foreman regarding the evidence that the latter was seriously biased and engaged in misconduct during deliberations. More than all this, the judge imposed a death sentence when the jury was deadlocked on punishment (something only a judge in Missouri and Indiana is free to do).
(Side note: at least 201 innocent people have been executed in the United States since 1973 – and this is the bare minimum. More than this, people of means are almost never executed, because they have the funds to hire good legal counsel, and are not dependent on overworked public defenders.)
Perhaps Gov. Kehoe will take into account the fact that Shockley has been a exemplary Christian guide and mentor both to his fellow inmates and to prison staff. Since he has been moved to pre-execution solitary confinement, this has included spending “a few hours a week sitting in the middle of the wing preaching, praying, and reading Scripture while his fellow prisoners sit on floor of their cells to listen through the food ports in their doors.”
Perhaps Gov. Kehoe will act in keeping with his Catholic faith, as the Church has long opposed capital punishment. Perhaps he will take into account Pope Leo XIV’s observation that ”Somone who says, ‘I’m against abortion but I’m in favor of the death penalty’ is not really pro-life.’”
Perhaps.
28 years ago – September 24, 1997 – I was sitting in the front row of the “friends and family” viewing box at Potosi, where Shockley’s friends and family will be seated tomorrow evening.
Upon moving in 1984 to Missouri – my first death penalty state – I submitted my name to Death Row Support Project, to become a pen pal with someone who had been sentenced to death. That’s how I connected with Samuel McDonald, CP-17 (signifying that he was the seventeenth man placed on Missouri’s Death Row).
Unlike Lance Shockley, there was no question that Sam – in a drug-induced haze — shot Robert Jordan, an off-duty police officer. But in keeping with Shockley, Sam’s public defender was inept, getting into shouting matches with the judge. More than this, the judge would not permit testimony that Sam – a decorated Vietnam War veteran — had returned from the war not only addicted to heroin, but also suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome (for which there was a raft of evidence).
So it was that he was sentenced to die.
I first connected with Sam via letters. Then there were visits to the penitentiary. Then, after I moved out of state to take another teaching position in 1988, it was phone calls, usually every other weekend. We talked sports, politics, religion; we had a lot of laughs, making fun of each other. But there were also serious conversations. I commiserated with him when his son was shot and paralyzed. He commiserated with me when my mother died of cancer, attending to my grief perhaps more than anyone outside my family.
In short, we became very close friends. . . . and he gave to me at least as much as I gave to him. And I worked hard to forget that Missouri was determined to kill him. But all that came to an end in the spring of 1997, when the Supreme Court refused to stay his execution, and the governor of Missouri ignored my letter and many, many other pleas, and refused to consider clemency.
And Sam asked me to serve as one of his six witnesses.
So there I was, sitting in the front row of the viewing booth with members of Sam’s family. And the guards raised the blinds. There was Sam on a gurney, looking at us and speaking rapidly (we could not hear what he was saying). Then the drugs kicked in, Sam shuddered, and then he was still.
And as I write, I hope against hope that this scene is not repeated tomorrow evening.
For two remarkable personal accounts regarding Lance Shockley, see here and here.
And for an additional indignity that Lance Shockley – “a Christian minister behind bars” – must endure, see here.
