[Rodstar (Rod)]

Thanks Glenn for starting what has been a rather revealing discussion.

It seems to me that the debate on this thread is not ultimately about faith in creationism or ID, but rather, fundamentalism.

The classic features of fundamentalism, as I would define them, are:

1. A rigid uncompromising belief system.
2. A tendency to characterise the world in black and white terms.
3. A tendency to divide people into two camps, "us" and "them".
3. Arrogance and contempt for the belief and ideas for those who don't agree, adopting a language of exclusion where others are not allowed into the group unless they subscribe to mandatory beliefs.
4. A determination to convert "them" into becoming "us", often spoken of by adopting the language of war or a battle.
5. Holding such a belief system will often result in actual conflict, whether verbal or physical.

There is reference in the thread to the right-wing fundamentalism of the Bush administration. That administration is well-known for its very black-and-white analysis of world affairs, and in many ways may well reflect the definition given above.

Drawing upon the four features of fundamentalism I cited above, as example I note:

1. This thread is commenced by a call to war, "fighting the fight" and the thread starter describes interations with creationists in his early attempts as "battles". One of the battles he describes between 3 evolutionists and 200 creationists. He is now a strong believer in "doing a bit of 'back burning' in the school system (or in the community as a whole)". He recommends "targetting" teachers with a science background. He asks whether we are, "serious about attacking the "ID'ers". He declares that "It's time to act".

2. The thread-starter groups all creationists together with some very unfortunate perjoratives. Creationists "have no background in science or the scientific method" and have had their beliefs, "drilled into them". They are compared with "natives putting pins into a voodoo doll", are "cashed up", "live by the line 'spread the word'", use every resource available - even being sneaky". They are "well meaning but misguided people".

3. Another author says (referring to creationists), "one side wants to hide behind an impenetrable wall and then snipe from behind this wall under the guise of scientific argument with totally unsupportable 'evidence' or even worse misquoted half truths" and yearns for "an even playing field". The same author also speaks of the impact of the creationist movement as being "about power via the votes of the uninformed."

4. Another author decries creationism as unscientific. "if you are a scientist being whatever school you must already know the rules of the game....I will entertain "the science" if it entertains the rules of science." After asserting that creationism does not play by the rules of science, the author evicts creationists. "Observe the dress rules and you can come in....otherwise no entry".

I have the greatest empathy and agreement the most with those who speak of the importance of respect and tolerance. By attacking those of a creationist belief set in the way they have been attacked on this thread, the self-styled scientists are actually committing the same offence of which they accuse the "creationists". I would describe this attitude as scientific fundamentalism. I think there no place for scientific fundamentalism, in the same way that there is no place for religious fundamentalism.

It is simply inaccurate to assert that all creationists are unscientific (just as much in fact as it is to assume that all evolutionists are well-researched scientists!). There is a host of scientists in academic institutions in Australia and around the world who embrace scientific method and who also believe in a creator. The best man at my wedding is a CSIRO scientist who believes in a creator. In 2003, 50 scientists banded together to publish a text, "Why 50 Scientists Choose to believe in Creation".

As some have observed, it may be that the majority of those who believe in a creator are not included in the consideration of scientific fundamentalists because they DO NOT engage in fundamentalist tactics. Also, as Ken has rightly observed, most modern Christians do not fit the stereotype of "creationist fundamentalism". Most Christians I know accept that the universe is billions of years old, that geological processes takes millions of years, etc.

It is an interesting irony that modern science actually arose because it was assumed that there was a Creator who had made a world of order, which should therefore be capable of being studied. Science and faith are not the opposites some would assert.