I've been rather bemused today, and had my assumptions about fundamentalists rather challenged, by finding out that George Gilder, who was very widely quoted (in places like Wired magazine) as a futurist and tech pundit in the .com era, is also a founder of the creationist Discovery Institute. Rather weirded out at the combination of a life spent thinking about (and promoting) technology, and creationism.
I always thought he was at best dubious as a tech commentator, and I'm becoming a bit clearer on some of the reasons why (he was also a big supply-side economics booster, loved by Reagan).
Anyway, I generally use the term 'biblical literalist', which to me captures the particular element in their theology that I find problematic.
Stats from the US tend to distort things a little -- in the US, as far as I can tell, biblical literalism is mainstream Christian belief, possibly even actual mainstream opinion. I'm not convinced statistical evidence about US fundies would translate to here (where they are a small minority) well.
And lastly -- biblical literalists in general may be reasonable, and deserve politeness and respect. Those groups who are their public face, however, do not always fall into the same category. The ID folks are engaged in a knowingly dishonest campaign. They don't necessarily deserve to be attacked for their views, but it conversely, but when they use dishonest or dirty tactics to promote them, they deserve to be attacked for that.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-22 10:09 am (UTC)I always thought he was at best dubious as a tech commentator, and I'm becoming a bit clearer on some of the reasons why (he was also a big supply-side economics booster, loved by Reagan).
Anyway, I generally use the term 'biblical literalist', which to me captures the particular element in their theology that I find problematic.
Stats from the US tend to distort things a little -- in the US, as far as I can tell, biblical literalism is mainstream Christian belief, possibly even actual mainstream opinion. I'm not convinced statistical evidence about US fundies would translate to here (where they are a small minority) well.
And lastly -- biblical literalists in general may be reasonable, and deserve politeness and respect. Those groups who are their public face, however, do not always fall into the same category. The ID folks are engaged in a knowingly dishonest campaign. They don't necessarily deserve to be attacked for their views, but it conversely, but when they use dishonest or dirty tactics to promote them, they deserve to be attacked for that.