Andrew (rhetorically?) asks:

If Darwin was right, how does such religious idiocy survive? What is it fit for?

I think most people would agree that, in a dangerous world, children that obey their parents' instructions are more likely to live, grow up, and have children, than children who ignore their parents' instructions.

So we are selected for obedience to authority.

I further suggest that our ancestors are far more likely to be those folks who ran away from the rustling in the bushes (whether or not it was actually dangerous) rather than those who stayed to investigate -- a substantial portion of investigators were subsequently eaten which made them somewhat less likely to have kids!

So we are selected for jumping to conclusions from limited evidence.

Put these two things together, and you have strong predispositions for believing what we are told coupled with a strong tendancy to extrapolate badly from that information, especially towards the "this is a threat to me" conclusion.

These two things alone explain all sorts of behaviour, such as the extraordinary motivating power of fear, and our extraordinary socials skills in the "identify the leader of this group" category.

A friend of mine explains the origin of religion using the "virgin down the well" story.

Og: Why da harvest dis year worse dan last year?

Ug: Dunno. But last year just before da harvest, remember that girl fell down da well?

Og: I do remember dat! And she was a virgin, too, dat's what Ag's mom said.

Ug: Really? You thinking what I'm thinking?

Og: Dunno! What you thinking?

Ug: Seems like when there's a virgin down the well, the harvest is better, and it's been like dat two years in a row!

Pretty soon you're sacrificing virgins / chanting to the sky god / praying to Jesus to make the harvest better every year.

That's the thing about evolution. There is no big blueprint or Microsoft® Project file kept in a vault somewhere. It's all just random bumping around. So stupid things happen right along with the smart ones.

We can only hope the smart ones win...

Religious reactionaries are selected for in religious reactionary societies. Let's take the Taliban for example. Once you institute religious law, only the religiously devout survive to reproduction. Dissenters and those who raise dissenting children, end up either dead, or their children are dead. But this is changed substantially under a democratic socialist society. Religious nutballs and non sex before marriage types reproduce quite poorly in Norway. Over time Norway's social system reinforces democratic socialist norms.

The desire to see your world view crammed onto your respective government is almost a natural selection pressure from this perspective. These nut asses that yelled at the Indian guy represent the group of people in our country that wants to implement their version of religious law, which would outlaw marriages that aren't protestant Jesus based god sanctioned. The "protect marriage" acts are clearly reproductive control. The jump between reproductive control and directing evolution is pretty small.

Relative to evolution and fanatics, you ask the sensible question, "how does such religious idiocy survive? What is it fit for?"

Because they hate themselves and don't want to fix that self-hate, it is vital that fanatics of all stripes establish a sense of self that makes almost no sense, which they try to force down others' throats, and which they will defend to the death.

This was the ancient state of mind that established human life on earth and made for its survival: this original survivalism. Here we have the insane self-hating risk-taking courage with which little people jumped bears and mammoths, and decimated neighboring tribes. You couldn't live life if you weren't willing to throw it away.

Shame and shamelessness figures in there too.

We see now that this view of life is no longer adaptive. Don't worry - They're busy killing themselves off, which is fine as long as they don't get us too. But it is a cornered rat thing too.

Best,

Monty

(Much more on this specific topic, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")

You asked, "If Darwin was right, how does such religious idiocy survive? What is it fit for?"

For one thing, it helps the intelligent and sane among us choose other intelligent and sane individuals for their mates, leading, should they breed, to more intelligent and sane individuals...who will always be in the minority.

I would love to see an atheist give an opening homage to science and rationality.

discussing religion as a consequence of DNA selection is a tricky business, partly because most people misunderstand the discussion.

Thinking about selection is difficult. DNA either survives and reproduces, or it doesn't. It's a purely mechanistic process.

shannonr posits an interesting way of looking at this...but *religion* is not what's selected. A tendency to believe in supernatural reasons for things is selected. It's an important distinction, and one to keep in mind.

We appear to have evolved to derive pleasure from these beliefs..that, all by itself, seems a tell-tale sign of genetic selection, because the stimulation of the manufacture of pleasurable brain chemicals is, to some degree, part of the autonomous nervous system..a very old part of our physiology.

People who believe in the supernatural *seem* (and I use that word advisedly) to be much more willing to *die* for their beliefs. To die for the pleasure those beliefs provide. For instance, I am highly unlikely to die for my atheism. It's not worth that to me..if I had to fake being religious to survive, I probably would. I get no brain-chemical rush from being an atheist...unlike the born-again christian, who gets a regular rush from his or her beliefs.

So, to answer your question, Andrew, rhetorical though it may have been, those three guys in the congress who making a scene would probably kill you, your wife, and your children, in defense of their beliefs, if it seemed like the thing to do at the time. You might kill them defending your family, but they would have an advantage. If they succeed, their DNA goes on. Your's doesn't. QED

(not a perfect argument, I admit, but you get my drift..)