Theological Culture-Shock?

I've been doing some reading in preparation for this Evolution/Creationism class and am starting to understand some of the more subtle differences in attitudes between the various scholars. The creationist Phillip Johnson makes a point of talking up his productive professional interactions with Michael Ruse. Ruse testified at the 1981 Arkansas Trial when most other philosophers felt it unnecessary to explain the self-evident fact that Creation Science is not a science. Since then, possibly because of his debates with Johnson, he has started acknowledging the metaphysical foundations upon which science stands. Of course this is not unusual for a philosopher, but it is very rare to hear in the context of evolution where the assumptions are quite small (no supernatural) compared to philosophy of physics (apparently space and time are discrete and some effects have no cause).

Earlier this year he had an email argument with Daniel Dennett in which he criticises both Dennett and Richard Dawkins for "knee-jerk atheism". As well as being experts on evolution, Dennett and Dawkins have each written books on atheism, which Ruse feels "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design".

I then realised that this is why Dawkins ("Darwin's Rottweiler") and even Dennett (whom I know Lisa admires) are not on the syllabus for this class. And the more I think about it, the more I suspect that this is a Anglo-American dichotomy of styles. I think Dennett is a bit of an exception and Ruse (despite being Canadian) is closer to the American style passivation. Dawkins, as a rule, doesn't debate creationists because he considers that to be giving them the "oxygen of respectability". That tactic would probably work fine in England (or most western countries) where creationists are in such a minority but in the USA there's such a high proportion of creationists that evolution and atheism are already too strongly associated together. Perhaps it's the fact that the separation of church and state is enshrined in their constitution. (They worship the constitution! Any educated American can tell you what most of the amendments are and the different ways in which they are being construed. Much more than I could tell you about Australia's constitution.) Now, I like having that whole separation thing written down and all but maybe enshrining it is what makes so many Americans incompatibilists when it comes to science and religion.

Add to this the fact that the stigma of atheism is far greater in the US than most other Protestant countries e.g. George H. W. Bush is reported to have said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

As unpleasant and offensive as I find those attitudes, deep down I'm secretly looking forward to meeting one of those rednecks (just not in my class, please!) so I can test the bounds of my cultural tolerance. It would also give me something interesting to write home about!