I am responding to the letter from Loren Siprell on “The threat of fundamentalism Creationism” in the March 6, 2014 edition of “The Star”.


Dear Editor:



I am responding to the letter from Loren Siprell on “The threat of fundamentalism Creationism” in the March 6, 2014 edition of “The Star”. I need to ask Ms. Siprell: What is the threat of fundamentalism Creationism? Is that the same, or similar to the threat of fundamental, or radical Islam? Surely the risk is similar. With a “threat” statement there must be concern for bodily harm or at least financial or environmental catastrophe.



I really don’t have any issue with Ms. Siprell’s beliefs – because they are her beliefs, not facts, not rules, not requirements. Why does Ms. Siprell and others sharing her opinion find it necessary to define others “beliefs” as a threat to anything?



Christianity is a faith of tolerance, “turn the other cheek”, forgiveness, and salvation. Christianity formed the foundation for the creation of this nation where people have, historically had more opportunity to succeed than any other nation in the world. It has formed the basis of the thinking of people who are the most generous, and quickest to help any nation who has endured a natural or man created tragedy. The only threat that I see is with the overriding onslaught of government laws, rules, or orders which always abridge our God given rights, that opportunity may be severely reduced.



Christianity is a faith that offers freely selected salvation, but does not demand it. Other, “fundamental” religions require adherence or submission, penalties or death.



Science readily acknowledges that there are many undeniable holes, in Darwin’s theory of evolution. For example, Darwin readily admitted that he couldn’t explain how the eye could be developed through a series of changes (i.e. all 40 muscles must form at the same time for the eye to focus). Random choice? I think not. I don’t buy it, but if you do, it’s OK with me. Why am I a “threat”?  Why would Ken Ham’s statement that “no one is going to convince me that the word of God is untrue” worry you? Further you state that in the face of “insurmountable evidence” he clings to his faith. Sounds kinda’ like the “settled science” of global warming (while we freeze our A—off) to me. Ms. Spirell, what are you saving us from? Alternative choices? Other ideas? Independent thinking? Faith?



You don’t need to alert me. I have evaluated the alternatives and I am capable of forming my own opinion. You may form yours, as you wish. As the writer who defined Voltaire said “although I considerably disagree with what you say I will defend to the death your absolute right to say it!”



Although I don’t agree down the line with Ken Ham’s interpretation of Genesis, I believe that the Bible is God’s word as transcribed by man. Whether you are a person of faith or not matters not to me. Either way I don’t view you as a threat. Why do you think it necessary to “protect the youth of our country” from various opinions? Are you afraid that with the totality of information that they might not come to the same opinion you have?



Finally, you don’t have to worry about “blowback” from me. I’ll do worse – I’ll pray for you.



James McKenzie



St. Joe Beach