REAL ART FUNDAMENTALIST TWOFER

First, Seattle Journalist David Neiwert over at Orcinus looks at creeping creationism as an organized, well funded political movement, which is now using "intelligent design theory" as a stealth concept to push a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation story:

Intelligence on their designs

Science and fundamentalism are natural enemies, because they represent diametrically opposite models for understanding the world.

Fundamentalism begins with articles of faith, gleaned from Scripture, for which it then goes in search of evidence as support -- ignoring, along the way, all contravening evidence.

Science begins with the gathering of evidence and data, which are then assembled into an explanatory model through a combintation of hypothesis and further testing. This model must take into account all available facts, including contradictory evidence.

They are, in other words, 180 degrees removed from each other in how they affect our understanding of the world. One is based in logic, the other in faith. As methodologies go, they are simply irreconcilable.

Moreover, it's clear that the fundamentalists who are rapidly gaining complete control of the American government's reins of power fully recognize this natural emnity -- and intend to use their rising power to curtail the influence of science on society: in government, in the schools, and in the media.

Click here for the rest.

Next, from the Daily Kos courtesy of Eschaton, a quick primer on arguing with fundamentalists:

How to Use the Bible in Your Political Arguments

So here's what you need to remember in a nutshell: there is a difference between claiming that a text is authoritative, and saying that it is foundational.

The former is the fundies' home turf, and you will not win on it. The latter might seem like more work initially, but it may also bear greater fruit.

Why aren't you going to win on the "authoritative" turf? Because that's where the fundamentalists have been playing for the past hundred years. Long story short, a group of conservative Christians reacted against liberal readings of the Bible early in the 20th century by publishing a series of pamphlets on the "Fundamentals" of Christian belief. Those fundamentals had the by now familiar ring to them: the Bible is the sole, sufficient, authoritative guide to Christian life.

It's a rule book, in other words. You go to the instruction manual, it tells you what to do, butta-bing, butta-boom! You're done.

And who ever reads an instruction manual from start to finish? You read the parts you need, and ignore the parts you don't. And trust me, these folks have way more "instructions" memorized than most of us. So if you go into an argument on social policy armed with a shaky knowledge of the Beatitudes and Christ's injunctions to care for the poor, you're going to get slaughtered. It's like arguing precedent with a lawyer: if you don't know what you're talking about, it's generally a good idea to stay out of the conversation.

Otherwise, you're just going to prove yourself to be an ignoramus. More to the point, you're going to demonstrate that you don't "really" believe this stuff.

Click here for more.

I don't entirely agree with everything this essay advocates. One can go toe to toe with fundamentalists, using the Bible as the final authority. For me, the key is using the concept of literal interpretation against them. That is, noting how often they don't interpret the Bible literally, and using this as a wedge issue. For instance, the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination, and that homosexuals should be put to death, but it also says that adultery and dishonoring one's parents are also worthy of death--that's what it says; if you really want to interpret the Scriptures literally, you need to be calling for the death penalty for adulterers and dope smoking teenagers. Of course, nobody's going to advocate that kind of brutality, which generally leaves rank and file fudamentalists flapping their gums and stammering. It's very amusing.

Of course, I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and paid more attention than most of my peers in Bible study classes, so most of the time I know the Bible better than the average evangelical schmuck: maybe it's easier for me to argue on their "home turf" and win. At any rate, this essay offers a different strategy from mine that appears to be effective, especially for people who don't know the Bible that well. Whatever works.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$