The Real Religious Fanatics

The atheists who've adopted Darwin ex post facto as one of their own:

But while the would-be Darwins might have succeeded in dismissing ID on scientific grounds, their argument has been less convincing in a secondary aim. Much of the controversy surrounding their hero derives from an aspect of Darwinism (as currently construed) that is itself unscientific; one might even say, if not "religious," distinctly political--Darwinism's vaguely defined but apparent relationship to atheism. As a caveat to its attack on ID the press denies any such relationship. The Times op-ed invokes "many empirical scientists" who are implied to dismiss ID in spite of their faith. These theistic scientists, the editorial claims, understand that "theories about how God interacts with the world" are "beyond the scope of their discipline," and by implication are disinclined to entertain challenges to Darwin based on questions of divine agency. So the Times's preference among scientists of a religious turn of mind are those who keep God in church or the closet where He belongs. It's okay to believe in God as long as God doesn't step on Darwin's toes--as long as you've reconciled your faith with Darwin's ostensibly infallible insights.

To those who cluck-cluck that Intelligent Design is nothing more than "God of the gaps" dressed up in new clothes, I ask how holding religiously to the notion that science will eventually come up with the right explanation for how life began and fluorished on Earth one day is intellectually superior to the notion that what we cannot explain today may have been the result of divine intervention.

Try digging out science magazine back issues from the 80s if you want a good laugh about the "dead certainties" of science---you might be surprised as to how many things we thought we knew then we don't know now.

Science is an extremely useful endeavor, but like all things undertaken by man, it is not infallible. Moreover, it is limited by what can be observed and tested. This necessarily puts boundaries on it. When scientists in search of grant money or public acclaim start extrapolating beyond what is observable, they very quickly take on religious robes and run on faith when facts run out.

Of course, secular humanism, the prevailing faith of American science, won't be recognized as the driving creed of the evolutionists in the LWM anytime soon---instead, we'll continue to get endless stories about how creationist fanatics are simply tilting at windmills rather than responding to the atheists' nihilistic crusade. It's all perfectly rational, you see, and anyone who points out just how wide the gaps are in our knowledge of life's origin is simply a religious wingnut.