Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

my thoughts, I disagree. In fact, I think sometimes fundamentalists over-emphasize reason and try to fit spiritual truths into boxes based on more secular paradigms. I think they often under-emphasize spiritual experience such as mysticism, or revelation, and wind up missing the point of Love, which is only a concept of reason secondarily and first and foremost is an experience and action.I also think that the scientific method is by definition limited by the available technology and so for many matters should not be relied on. For example, I do not think one should or does rely on the scientific method to determine whom to marry.Now, one should use reason, but even here I think there is some signicant qualifications. Reason is not the only means to knowledge and accuracy. I would temper subjective feelings of what is love and right, for example, somewhat by reason. You want to marry the right person, but relying on reason alone and excluding one's "faith" in what they feel is right would be silly.In other words, intuition can be very accurate, and it is reasonable to consider one's intuition. In fact, if one's gut feeling is, for example, that a business deal is not right, but one's reason is that it is, I'd stronglu suggest you ignore your reason and stay clear of the deal.Faith in some respects often begins with intuition, an inward "knowing" or belief of knowing, that something is true. Then, one used one's reason to determine if the intuitive knowledge is correct.Science limits reason in that regard and so in reality science is not really based on pure reason, but on a limitation of reason to current technology, research, funding, etc,...and that is very limited for certain issues.So I'd say fundamentalists do not in fact emphasize reason any less than science. They just have different parameters for how to use reason.In terms of the Amish question, I consider it quite ridiculous any way you look at it. It's not hypocritical, even what you are sayign was true, and in general fundamentalists revere science in many respects, which is why they often quote scientists in defense of the faith.Heck, imo, they put way too much stock in science, not less.

I'd like to just throw in there that some Darwinists appear to be every bit as much fundamentalists, and throw out scientific data and analysis, if it disagrees with their theory.

The OE paradigm has nothing to do with it. One thing academics and scientists often fail to realize, when people quote them, is that their work often has little to do with how people conduct their business.Oil prospectors have learned to look for clues and base drilling on those clues. The theory overlays but does not determine the clues. If there was another theory, the process would still be the same, only they might give another explanation for why the clues are correct.Same often with other areas. The business-man that relies on reason alone and ignored his gut feelings is not a wise businessman.

I didn't say "feelings" were the clues.

Wrong since geologists are trained to assess the evidence. But you are right that a technician with the same skills as geologists could use those skills to do the same job with or without relying on OE beliefs.

my 2 centsBut back to the OP, and I am not sure how oil exploration is related to the OP, but one fundamentalist, a Pentacostal preacher, is a very famous paleontologist by the name of Dr Robert T Bakker.Considering the man is a fundamentalist preacher, a Pentacostal, it is interesting to me how he was way ahead of the curve in accurately predicting dinosaurs were probably much faster than the mainstream science considered, and probably warm-blooded.Thus, the notion that fundamentalists are anti-science is totally unfounded.I believe as well, that a certain prominent geneticists heading up the human genome project, is a believer that the Bible is the word of God, and is a born-againer, by definition a fundie based on the definitions around here.In fact, some fundamentalists believe in theistic evolution.

So how you are defining fundamentalists. Most IDers and many YECers are not fundamentalists in the narrow religious sense of the term, which refers to non-Charismatic/Pentecostals that hold to certain literal intrepretations of the Bible and generally conservative philosophy.If you are classifying anyone that holds to the Bible as the word of God, even the literal word of God, then all evangelicals are indeed fundamentalists. They adhere to the fundamentals of the faith.Young Earth Creationism is not generally considered a tenet exclusive to or central to Christian fundamentalists.Plenty "fundamentalist" Christians don't actually hold to YEC and some do. If you ask Francis Collins if he believes Jesus rose from the dead, really walked on the water, that the Bible is the word of God, etc, etc,...I suspect from what I have read that he would answer in the affirmative. Same with Bakker.

Very good point.