As geneticists have begun to discover recently, there are familial relationships involved in Asperger's Syndrome - i.e., entire families that all have Aspergers. I am of the opinion, after spending a number of years in the science fiction/fantasy community that Aspergers can also be associated with a sort of fussy, cranky intolerance for others' ideas and beliefs. Sometimes people with Aspergers, or touches of Aspergers, are uncomfortable with, not only ambiguity, but also challenges to their preconceived and firmly-held convictions that may not have a basis in fact.
In selecting what they believe to be an alternative belief system to organized religion (or disorganized religion, I guess), people who are concerned with newer Atheist ideas and movements are particularly fixated on the negative. They conflate the Bible with all religious belief; to them - the existence of contradictions or uncertainties within the Biblical text instantly "disprove" all religion. Of course, the Bible, in its multifarious editions, is a book followed by one religion, but historically, encountering contempt and opposition from Christians, Atheists in the West seem to have focused almost completely on providing information that they believe debunks Christianity. Only now is the American Atheist website beginning to address issues of inconsistency or objections to Islam - a religion that currently has a militant wing that lends literal credence to Dawkins' claims that religion is the "root of all evil."
The biggest question in reading the Bible is right up front in Genesis. If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, where did the woman who married Cain come from? That one immediately occurred to me, and I guess I must be a retard, because it didn't shake my faith in Christ. It just made me wonder where they went wrong - and realize there were parts of the story most definitely lost in the mists of time. There are lots of "official explanations" for this - some people believe that the woman from Nod who married Cain was actually another descendant of Adam and Eve and torturously explain many generations and hundreds of years passing, while others think there were other people around, and that Adam and Eve were not "created" literally in an instant by the hand of God in an isolated garden of Eden (as seen on "Star Trek").
Jacob at Contextual Criticism is celebrating Darwin's bi-centenary birthday by saying, "The problem with creationists is simple: they begin with a belief and then attempt to fit the evidence to conform to that belief. They operate in a manner exactly opposite of the scientific method.
Oh, Jacob, you rationalist! Everyone knows that REAL scientists ALWAYS follow the "real scientific method"! First, Creationists literally believe the words in Genesis, and they believe them in a manner that fits the translation at hand, and assumes that the words written down long ago correspond to today's concepts - i.e., days, months, years, etc. Many people disagree with them, or do not feel that their faith in God is mightily shaken by the difficulties in conforming that account with what our eyes and ears and minds tell us today.
Point being - the truly rational person views each subject or issue as it comes. I know that Christ is real due to personal knowledge. I can't share that with a skeptic or irrational nonbeliever or really, anyone else. It is my personal knowledge based upon my own experience. I can read and receive illumination from the Bible. Neither of those two things means any injury to others whatsoever. And I am greatly fortunate that I do not, on a daily basis, have to risk my life in the service of my faith, and also fortunate that I live in a nation where my speech is free, and I have the right to worship as I choose without interference. These are rights that represent rational advances and improvements in how people are best able to live with each other and move forward as a species.
Point being - religion cannot be replaced by "science" and it doesn't do "humanists" credit to ignore the pitfalls inherent in the human condition. There might be an idealized "scientific method" just as there are Gospels in the Bible. What people make of either of those things is, by definition, going to be imperfect. Creationists may well search for evidence to fit their specific interpretation of the words in Genesis. And people also believed in Piltdown Man for the better part of sixty years, and Clovis First for nearly 80. There are countless examples of physical evidence being overlooked in service of a dominant scientific theory at various times - and not a single one of them "Creationism." Mr. Rational Humanist above states that the Theory of Evolution is "proven" and therefore must be taught - he also includes the theory of relativity and "atomic theory" and "quantum theory." Uh, Jacob - some movement has occurred in these areas.
Clearly, the flaw in each sort of thinking is similar. Whereas rigid creationists are focused on fixing and pinning down a living faith in a strict definition with no room for change or additional comprehension, fixated Atheists are similarly focused on "proving" a negative. A true rationalist might call him or herself a "changeist." A true scientific textbook for students would encourage them toward positive investigation and questioning at all times. We are never going to know it all, and the biggest blinder that human beings have is their own ego, or their own intellectual limitations. All those scientific "mistakes" or wrong paths - they are coming from the same mentality that gave Galileo a hard time. There was solid evidence at Monte Verde in Chile for years that there were native peoples in the New World long before the "Clovis" people - and the French female scientists working there were humiliated and denigrated out of all proportion to their - correct, and beneficial, work. This is the RULE, not the exception. By applying the same sort of thinking to religious beliefs, progress can hardly be made.
And, according to this most excellent book, The Survivor's Club by Ben Sherwood, Dr. Harold Koenig at Duke University Medical Center has discovered evidence that people of ANY religious faith who regularly attend services live as much as seven years longer, on average, than those who do not have firm religious convictions. Dr. Koenig, a man of religious faith, makes it clear that his studies do not mean that "God is preserving the life" of those who believe and/or observe religious practices. There are numerous physical and mental health benefits associated with the actions related to religious practice - real and quantifiable - that appear to be related to these results. You see, there is one great basic in all religious traditions, Eastern and Western, with which I am familiar. Each teaches us that we are not alone. It teaches us that we are part of something greater than our own lonely, individual selves. This, in my way of thinking, automatically encourages a feeling of respect for the world around me, and helps me to understand that my own individual concerns are not where the world begins, and stops, turning. It makes it easy for me to be an environmentalist, for I understand that it is not my place to despoil and destroy the world in which I live - a simple concept that most animals also innately abide by (Bears do defecate in the woods, but they sure don't sleep in it). It makes it simple for me to accept and admire others who are different from me, because I can see that we are all part of a much larger, greater creation.
Science, and what some feel is akin to "intelligent design" shows us the same type of thinking - so much broader than our individual prejudices - about growth, change, acceptance and giving. So there is little wonder I would fight angry, negative, destructive Atheists. They defend neither science nor nature, and do nothing but discredit upon themselves and others.