— Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom
Recent trial balloons from the right suggest that the next approach for creationists attempting to make inroads into public school is the notion of science as a "materialist religion."
The argument for creationism is a theological one - "This is how I read the Bible." Responding with evidence for evolution misses the point - which is that some people choose to accept a somewhat literal reading of the Bible over the clear evidence.
While science is not a religion, and methodological materialism is not a faith, biblical literalism most certainly is. The relentless press to establish a narrow, sectarian view of Christianity as the official religion of the US is something we all should resist. First, because theocratic states are by their very nature repressive. Second, because this country explicitly rejects the idea of an official religion (that is why there is no religious test for office allowed in the constitution). Third, because the only people with the energy to push for a theocracy believe all sorts of things that are just plain wrong (like a young age for the earth, a global flood and special creation) that will cause all sorts of pain and damage when they end up with the sanction of government.
So the discussion might go like this:
Q: I've heard that evolution is a failed theory, and is only kept alive by lies and distortions. Why should I believe it?
A: If that were true, you should not believe it. As it happens, there is strong evidence for evolution, and I'd be happy to talk about it, but let me ask you a question first, "are you open to considering the evidence?"
Q: What makes you think I'm not?
Well, for most of us, we have a hard time believing in things we disagree with. For example, we want to believe certain things about our country, our children, our friends - and we have a hard time accepting it when someone presents us with facts that run counter to our beliefs.
It is the same with science. Most people who object to evolution have a particular view of God that they see as incompatible with the gradual development of life over billions of years.
If you accept evolution, you have to give up a literal reading of Genesis. Are you willing to consider doing that, if the evidence is strong enough?
------
Science is on the defensive on two fronts. First, that the evidence for evlution is flawed, and second, science is a religion, and so Christianity should be given equal time. The proper response is to point out that a particular sect is trying to promote their narrow sectarian faith at the expense of the truth, and in the face of the Constitution.
