I believe that Darwinian evolution is the most likely explanation for life's complexity. I used to believe that those who shared this view would be rational, thoughtful, civil, and articulate people. Instead I have found that at least a handful is quite the opposite: they can be as zealotic as their Bible-thumping creationist counterparts, and cause just as many problems.

It all started when inside an online discussion group I suggested that a mild form of Intelligent Design (ID) was potentially scientifically testable. I proposed that we could sift DNA for signs of intelligent design or at least intelligent tampering of some sort.

This was not a claim that powerful beings created all of life from scratch, but merely that intelligent beings may have merely changed DNA in some way as to leave detectable messages or artifacts, be they creators or fiddlers. Thus, it didn't even conflict with evolution, at least not on a large scale. (This is in contrast with Behe's version of ID, which claims that evolution is not powerful enough to account for certain mechanisms of life.)

Sifting DNA for patterns and signatures is not much different than SETI's sifting of the sky for signs of possible ET's. ET's could have fiddled with Earth DNA also. For example, if you landed here and found nothing more interesting than apes, you may be tempted to tinker with the apes to make them evolve into something you could talk to and share poetry and art with. DNA sifting is simply doing SETI by looking down instead of up. (I agree it probably quite unlikely, but being unlikely does not make it unscientific by any definition I have found.)

But the people accustomed to attacking creationists and Behe-style ID appeared angered at the idea that anything even close to Behe's version of ID might qualify as "science". I asked them for specific criteria for being a scientific hypothesis, but at first they couldn't find anything that would not also fail SETI's hypothesis.

After a while they turned to suspect definitions that introduced nitpicky rules just to target my version of ID and separate it from SETI. They made up their own definitions of "science" or grabbed others' out of context. Plus, they were extremely rude, calling me every name in the book and even registering email accounts in my name to try to intimidate me.

Why would they go through all this trouble in such as rude, vile, and perhaps even illegal fashion? The answer was revealed when I asked them about the impact of allowing some form of ID to be placed in grade-school textbooks alongside evolution.

They were livid. Many in the group painted a picture of doom and gloom whereby our kids would be "ruined by useless superstition" (paraphrased), turn into raging irrational zealots, and damage the economic competitiveness of the United States by mixing science with "superstition" because iPod and missile makers would use Biblical Voodoo instead of physics and math to build them. They almost fear that the next generation will make submarines that are powered by prayer and Bibles alone.

I do not think mentioning ID in textbooks will do any significant harm; it may even boost critical thinking skills because life is full of complex problems with at least two sides to the story. School should teach one how to think at least as much as what to think. One may not use scientific facts themselves in their adult work-life, but they will certainly need to understand the scientific process and critical thinking skills to compare conflicting claims. But, try telling this to the evolution zealots. They feel any exposure to ID in school will massively "pollute" these poor kids and scar them for life.

This fallacy is known as the "slippery slope" fallacy. It is the belief that compromise is not possible because giving in a little bit will lead to further sliding down the slope to doom and gloom. One of the evolution extremists even claimed that they were pretty sure it would indeed trigger a slippery slope.

It is not unlike the Christian fundamentalist belief that gay marriage will "undermine the fabric of society" and create corrupted children who will grow up to have mass orgies on the freeways in broad daylight and everybody will die of Aids and broil in hell next to the red-suited dude with horns.

Fundamentalist Christians also tend to think that promoting evolution is an advertisement against religion. Ann Culter's recent book makes evolution central to an alleged liberal conspiracy to remove religion and alleged Christian morals from schools and the world. (It should be pointed out that not every evolution believer is a zealot and not every Christian is a zealot. But the middle ground is not where the problems come from.)

So, we have both sides that fear the Slippery Slope of Doom and dig in like a steak-clinging bulldog against the other side.

Does this make evolution a religion, at least to the extremists? Well, that would probably get into a long definition debate about what religion really is. What really matters are the actions that such zealotry produces. It is not a supernatural power or lack of that shapes their fears. It is the slippery slope fears of theirs that makes them biased, stubborn, and uncompromising; traits often associated with religious zealotry. Regardless of what it is called, it is has frightening results.

Being right about evolution does not mean that an individual will also be right about the effects and impact of ID in textbooks. Being good at judging fossil evidence and understanding how mutations can lead to beneficial traits does not also by default make them a better judge of children's reactions to ID in textbooks. The second involves psychology and sociology, which are both gray arts at this stage in history. Science and math will not provide exacting, reliable answers. Their pet sociology that leads to fear of the slope cannot be convincingly disproved.

The nature of democracy and recent elections might also be contributing to this two-sided stubbornness because 51% can tell the other 49% what do to. This means that persuading a small percentage can change the outcome of important political decisions. Extreme evolutionists may be thinking that if ID in textbooks results in just one percent of the population becoming fundamentalists, then the tables may be shifted to the other side of the room. By a few votes, Bush III wins over Gore II, and Bush III pushes ID legislation.

Further, if it is shifted, then the door might be opened for yet more ID in textbooks, and perhaps the removal of evolution entirely. Thus, in their mind it may be a "positive feedback mechanism" whereby a small change results in an even bigger change, like a snowball gaining momentum per each roll.

Let's trace through how this may build according to their view. Mere mention of ID in school gives creationism legitimacy in the mind to one percent more of the population to fundamentalism. Because of the even split in the electorate, this extra one percent allows far more right-wing presidents and representatives to be elected. These political representatives then push to have ID expanded and evolution reduced or removed from textbooks. Science books then allegedly are turned into religious documents and real science disappears from the classroom. We then have a generation of superstitious religious zealots who don't know how to critically test ideas and technology, and we are then overrun by non-Christian nations who do.

And, the extreme religious right have there own versions of such snowballing nightmares

History shows that there are usually too many other factors for slippery slopes to take over so readily. For one, political and religious beliefs tend to shift back and forth like a big, slow pendulum. Further, other political issues come and go in perceived importance such that trying to control elections using just one factor is usually pointless.

However, paranoid people will be paranoid people. Zealots come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and belief systems. Religion probably breeds a good portion of zealots, but it is certainly not the only source. The Soviet movement showed that secular extremism is also deadly. What we need are more zealotic moderates to insist on compromise. God and/or evolution did not produce nearly enough of them for some reason.