Red blogule to "Intelligent Design" - Fundamentals and fundamentalism - Creationism and cretinism

"Pro-Life", "Intelligent Design"... these guys do have a knack for positive wording (don't even think about positive thinking). I gather they call torture in Abu Ghraib "Truth Quest" and the negation of all independant safeguards or watchdogs (the UN, the Geneva Convention, the International Criminal Tribunal...) something like "Active Freedom".
Bush's position on evolution resembles that of Revisionists on gas chambers : since there are alternative theories, students should be taught both angles*. This image may strike you as indecent and it is, but it clearly exposes the loopholes in the argumentation.
I'm not making any sick parallel between the existence of gas chambers and the existence of God, nor between proven facts and beliefs : I'm comparing people who knowingly manipulate opinions through biased rethorics.
I'm not even defending the theory of evolution, which is the best to date but won't explain everything. I just think the fundamentals of human society should be protected from religious fundamentalism.
Creationism** puts faith at the same level as science and that is the very negation of science. You can believe in ID if you want but you cannot call this science (and of course you have no right to believe in the non-existence of gas chambers).
Just the same, you cannot call "democracy" any approach of politics based on nor even mixed with religious beliefs. That is one of the reasons why, once again, Bush thinks and acts as an enemy to democracy, justice or science.

* or as the Washington Post relates it : "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about". You want to "teach" about Creation, Dubya ? If there were a place for it in school, it would be the History of Religions (with a "S" so that, this time, all angles could be presented). And you want "debate" now ? That's what I call "evolution" : you've been avoiding the debate on every other issue and the one you picked doesn't rely on any facts. Can you believe it ? No one can contest your belief !
** I realize that up to now my blogules on this issue have been spilled in French (see "National Geographic - Points de vue et images du monde" or "Creationism & Cretinism"). And I guess "creationism" should be rebranded into something more suitable : I suggest a generic term like "Religion-Based Beliefs" for all the likes of Creationism.