As to your use of the word ¨ Fundamentalism¨, I think you are really unclear as to what it means.
When I say 'fundamentalism' I mean the belief that every word in the bible is divinely inspired and thus literally true. Neither the Tanakh nor the NT makes any such claim for itself, so it's someone's invention.
And it's the source of all fundamentalism's problems, since it results in countless falsifiable claims that are easily falsified. The earth is NOT flat. The sun does NOT go round it. It did NOT exist before the stars did. It IS about 4.5 bn years old. Plants did NOT exist before the sun did. Birds did NOT exist before land animals did. The theory of evolution accurately describes the development of life on earth and grows stronger all the time.
Why would anyone wishing humanity well want to see fundamentalist nonsense taught to children?
Fundamentalism [...] has nothing to do with fear, or a closed mind
Fundamentalists, if the two or so I've met face to face and the many I've met on the net are any example, are terrified of other ideas, of different views, of challenges to the literal bible, which they read as challenges to their personal salvation, their key to heaven. As for a closed mind, if you have a mind even slightly open, you'll see the bible says the earth is flat and the sun goes round it, just as its authors thought, and that the earth isn't flat, and the sun doesn't go around it. But instead, they create an industry of rationalizing and pretending that black is white ─ at the same time contending the bible's literally true.
and certainly should be taught to the children of the parents that accept it.
If you're happy to teach your children as true, things that are demonstrably false statements about reality, if you think it's good to teach children that their loving god is going to pitch them into the lake of fire for eternity, and that science is a huge dishonest conspiracy, then I can't stop you. But I can't say it strikes me as admirable.
The concept of God is incoherent ? Nonsense.
Excellent. Then put me out of my misery. Tell me what a real god is, a god with objective existence, a god out there independent of anyone's imagination. Then tell me why, if this god has objective existence, you can't give me a credible demonstration of its reality. Why it never says or does anything. Tell me the test ─ the objective test, one that anyone can use, believer or not ─ that will tell us whether any real being or phenomenon we encounter is a god or not.
What is incoherent is the idea the universe created itself
The idea is perfectly coherent ─ that there's a natural pathway from chemistry to life. And work on this perfectly coherent idea is going on all the time, and you can read about progress in the science press. Do you read the science press? No one pretends success yet, but then, no one's yet proved Riemann's hypothesis either. The world is full of things yet to be done.
On what science-based ground do you say our attempts to understand abiogenesis must fail?
If science demonstrates abiogenesis in the lab, will you give up your faith?
that life created itself from the rain runoff from rocks and that the entire, huge universe, ordered itself so perfectly and beautifully with laws keeping it all working, purely by a chance that is so virtually impossible as to boggle the mind.
That's just the argument from incredulity, a fallacy, a subjective reaction that doesn't lead to any conclusion about reality. You need understanding and evidence to argue with science about real things.
