How can someone who doesn't believe in evolution claim to not be a fundamentalist?

I've seen it a few times here.

Proponents of ''intelligent design'' claiming that they're not fundamentalists, they just don't ''believe'' in evolution.

Aren't they familar with the history of the ID handbook, ''People %26 Pandas''? Prior to 1987 it was the creationist handbook, change ''creation'' to ''intelligent design'' and ''creator'' to ''designer'', and they think it's a science book.

Fact is, it's still religion. And it's still a fundamentalist approach to it.

When are they going to realise the rest of the world doesn't ''believe'' in evolution, we know it to be fact, backed up by mountains of evidence.

And for the fundies who are going to ask ''where's your evidence?'', here's the link that I know you're to scared to go to.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

How can someone who doesn't believe in evolution claim to not be a fundamentalist?free spyware remover

Well that's quite simple really. Fundamentalists, by definition, believe in the fundamental (look at me, using the referent in the definition, bad skalite, bad!) truth of a scripture or text. They believe quite simply that any given text is literally true. Now, one needn't have any text-based belief to question evolution. They merely have a belief that it's wrong. This is possible because faith, which they'll claim, is a belief in something (or in this case against something) even in the absence of (or in this case despite of) evidence to the contrary. It's a hairline deliniation, but it is technically possible to say, ''I don't believe any (religious) text is literally true, but I don't believe evolution is true either.'' This is more a position from ignorance, but it is still a possible position.