The fundamentalist theist

The fundamentalist theist

Apparently, believing in God is now fundamentalist. That’s my conclusion after reading Susan Jacoby’s op-ed in the New York Times that says that the fundamentalism of the Scopes “monkey trial” is still alive and well with proponents of intelligent design replacing strict creationists in the battle against the “noble scientists” promoting Darwinism.

Intelligent design is the school of thought that says, however the universe came into being, creation and its complexity cannot be explained without there being an Intelligent Designer behind it. It does not propose a theology nor even a name for the Designer. Yet, anti-religion materialists assault it as a religious fundamentalism. And that who the real opponents of ID are: materialists, not Darwinists. Darwinism, or more accurately, natural selection, is not contradicted by ID, but ID says that the Designer could use any of a number of means for create. Evolution could be one of them. But materialists holdbut Church and science. This is the “little box” school of modern life. Religion goes in a box that is brought out on Sunday for one hour, but must remain in there the rest of the week, not infecting any other aspect of life. The materialists allow us our belief, but only when it does not impose itself on anything they see as important.

But what is more dogmatic than the anti-religion materialist? Who wants to oppress his diametric opposite more? Is their unintellectual drive to suppress any thought about theories of existence other than their own not a fundamentalist religion itself? The irony is delicious.

  • Always keep in mind that the “noble scientists” promoting Darwinism at the Scopes trial were deeply into eugenics and wished to use “science” and Darwin to suppress those uppity black folk who might have imagined that they too were created in the image and likeness of God. 

  • Dammit, Dom!  Don’t you see?  There are absolutely, positively NO absolutes!  NONE!

    OK.  Now back to my “science is my God” research on the “missing link.”  Oo!  I think I found something interesting here in the Piltdown quarry!

  • Pay no attention to the name-callers.

    A growing amount hard evidence is pointing away from natural selection/random mutation and the scientists-in-name-only are refusing to follow the evidence.

    A new generation of scientists will need to sweep aside to the strange attachment to a theory that doesn’t explain the “Origin of Species”.