According to Mr Vallely, I am a fundamentalist and also superstitious with arcane notions. Yet nowhere in Mr Vallely's article did I see a sign that he had examined Creationist claims. As I understand it, science is supposed to look at all possibilities before accepting one as fact. If this was carried out neither creation nor evolution theory would yet be scientifically acceptable.
Mr Vallely obviously believes in evolution, so what is his definition of fundamentalism? If it is simply belief in creation then how would he describe his belief? If his definition is refusal to look at rational and logical arguments, while sticking to a belief, then he has shown himself to be a fundamentalist.
I believe in creation because the facts support it. He mentions the debate about whether cell life proves or disproves evolution. In this the evolutionists are at a disadvantage. They point to so called "simple cells" and say they are proof that we could have evolved. These cells are just as complicated as any other found in our bodies, often more so, since they cannot depend on any other cells for support.
All present life is highly complex and it is impossible to do other than speculate about the past. And yet Mr Vallely accuses me of being a fundamentalist when I cannot accept something which cannot be proven.
The inability of scientists to agree on proof, inconsistencies in the fossil record and dating techniques could all be discussed. Is it really so hard to believe that a God who managed to create our incredibly complex world could manage to keep animals alive on an ark?
That is not fundamentalism, it's common sense.