Image by b_d_solis

Here on Cranial Collision, we are all about conversation. We want this place to be a community where we can all discuss topics and learn from each other. This isn't a one-way street of information flowing from whoever is writing the article to whoever is reading it. That is why all of your comments are so valuable to us! We find them very mentally stimulating and enlightening.

In case you missed them, I just want to take the time to republish some extremely insightful reader comments from "Darwin the Messiah:"

 

"I agree with you and have been debating this point for years with Darwinists as I like to call them. It's amazing how people try to play the "science" card with evolution. 1st off, all science can really do is say that something is prove enough things wrong to make a hypothesis about what might be the case. That's great, but it only holds true until it is proven wrong. And, the way scientists go about this process is via the scientific method in which they come up with a hypothesis, then observe, test, etc. Well, macro-evolution is neither observable nor testable, so it's simply not science. AND... it's a theory. Too many people don't understand that and present it as a fact. Unfortunately, claiming "science" when it comes to macro-evolution is contradictory to what science, by definition, is."

-Chris P

" As a scientist, I would like to clarify that science is a discipline which seeks to PROVE nothing. Rather, in scientific trials we test a null against a series of challenges to DISPROVE it. In other words, plausibility is a description applying only to a null that has withstood all attempts to disprove it. People seeking to PROVE evolution to be true are not scientists (Darwinian neophytes perhaps). The bottom line is that one never seeks to prove his/her own null as true. One raises a question and then tries to destroy it via a series of trials.

Trying to PROVE evolution to be true by attempting to DISPROVE God also provides a major problem, because how do you actually go about DISPROVING God.

Another major problem these so-called scientists face, has to do with the issue of REPEATABILITY. Once you have completed your trials and your null has survived, an independent scientist better darn well be able to come up with the same results.

Evolution has way to many variables to test as a single null, therefore proponents of evolution are forced to defend their position on the basis of - well faith - for lack of a better term. Ironic don't you think, considering most evolutionist would criticize me for my faith in God."

-JDB