There are lots of Christians who think Robertson's views are a bunch of nonsense. Consider, for example, the statement of Keith Miller, a member of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists, which I pasted below. Miller is addressing the parallel Kansas Controversy, which took a tack opposite that in Pennsylvania. Or consider the statement of Mark Noll, a Professor of Christian Thought at an evangelical college: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_02.html
Keith Miller's statement:
"Those seeking the elimination of evolution see current scientific and theological descriptions as being mutually exclusive and contradictory. The warfare view of science (particularly evolutionary biology and geology) and faith is assumed. But this view has been soundly refuted by a multitude of historical studies. For example, several of the founders of modern geology were committed Christians. Young Earth views were virtually absent among Christian apologists until well into this century. The primary proponent of Darwin's ideas in North America was Asa Gray, who was a committed evangelical Christian. Furthermore, several contributors to the "Fundamentals" (a series of volumes from which the name "fundamentalist" derives) accepted some form of evolution. Many scientists presently teaching at the leading evangelical Christian colleges accept evolution as a powerful and well-supported theory of biological origins. My point here is that there is no necessary, inherent conflict between an ancient evolving Earth and a high view of the authority of scripture.
Another major misconception is that science is simply the accumulation of observational fact, and theories are merely unsubstantiated guesses. This "facts only" view of science misses the core of what the scientific enterprise really is. In my opinion, nothing could be more deadly to teaching science than to divorce it from the unifying theories which give observations meaning. They make the world comprehensible. They also generate the testable hypotheses (expectations) that drive further exploration and discovery. When science is taught as only factual observation (something the standards passed by the Board would encourage), then disagreements among scientists and changing scientific views are seen as weaknesses and failings of scientific knowledge. However, the exact opposite is the case. It is the dynamic, changing, self-correcting nature of science that is its very strength. The less science is seen as a body of established knowledge, the more inherently interesting and exciting it becomes."