Skepticism is valuable and rarely utilized. You see those Jesus fish and you see the Darwin fish. Two huge opposing standpoints. One backed by science, one believed by faith. That's not necessarily the case. Recently, science has become its own religion. We now have faith in science. The absolute majority of all people believe anything a scientist proclaims, where as scientists are generally skeptical. It's in the nature of science. If it wasn't, we would still use Galenic medicine or bleed people with a fever. This is the better half of science. If these people weren't skeptical, we would still throw poor defenseless animals into fiery volcanoes to appease the local gods. We no longer do this because science challenges conventional wisdom, and changed the course of belief. Notice the word choice. "Belief". Science changes belief, not fact. The receiving end of this science, accepts these beliefs as facts. They're called theories. Scientific theories. And here's the loaded one: the theory of evolution. Hence the Darwin fish feet, whatever that obscure thing is.

Notice it's not called the "done deal of evolution". No, rather, the "theory" of evolution. Why? Because science can't prove it. Does this mean it's not true? No. Science can't prove any opposing standpoint either. So does that mean that it is true? No. It means science has boundaries and it gets a little questionable when it exceeds those boundaries. Science must be testable. Otherwise, it's not science. It could be historical, philosophical, metaphysical, or something along those lines, but not scientific. If it's testable, it becomes scientific. That's a part of the nature of science. And the primary basic assumption in this science, is that a true physical universe exists. This is limited to matter. So in this, a testable physical universe can lend truth. Outside of these boundaries, and science becomes a lengthy stretch.

Regardless, scientists are placed on the forefront of all intellectual truth, and this is done through credibility. It makes "scientific evidence" quite believable. But it can't prove anything definitively. It can, however, come up true in a substantial amount of tests to add enough weight to the theory to be regarded as truth. So truth presupposes testability. Guess what's not fully testable. The theory of evolution. It has it's testable aspects, some of which hold up, some of which don't. We don't hear about the ones that don't. And if you know anything about science, you should know why… It follows popular publication, which in turn follows money. Otherwise known as a political agenda. Sometimes that agenda is truth. "Sometimes", in this case, being less than half. By almost half. It's a pretty small percentage of the time that science is utilized to further unbiased knowledge. Rather, it's expressed dynamically to withstand the casting of doubt in support of popularity or funding. Either way, money.

This issue wouldn't be so complex if everyone wasn't so strongly, and more or less, blindly firm in their mindset. I'm not going to tell you what I believe because it doesn't matter. It's what you believe that matters to you. But it's too much of a loaded question to ask if God exists or not, and beyond that it's not scientifically testable. God's existence would not be part of a testable physical universe. So we fall into what can in many ways be tested, which is often regarded as the scientific counter to religion. The theory of evolution. This has become a religion of its own, and due to the fact that it's backed by a good proportion of the scientific field, it's taken as inherent knowledge. Scientists have become quite a powerful voice. In 1930, people were arrested if they taught evolution in the school system. It's 2002, now and you all know what happens if you teach the story of God's creation in the classroom. The theory of evolution is becoming the fundamental religion of the educated, and sometimes miseducated world. Again, the key word is theory. Plenty of theories are flawed, and that's precisely why they're labeled theories and not facts.

Darwin was brilliant. That can not be argued. And science almost undoubtedly proves that evolution exists. Just not to the full extent of the theory. Microevolution exists. It's the minor evolutionary changes in all living organisms that allows them to be adaptive to life. Pesticides are invented. Over time insects gradually develop a resistance to maintain survival. That's microevolution- primarily due to aspects of natural selection. But that doesn't explain where the actual insects came from. That would get into macroevolution. Basically the major changes and transformations. This is where the theory gets a little iffy. Skepticism alone can label some fairly open flaws. For instance, macroevolution finds the origin of birds in reptiles, which is an extremely doubtful evolutionary jump that Scott Minnich, a microbiology and biochemistry professor at the University of Idaho labels as "full of speculation and assumption."

The main problem with macroevolution is what biochemist Michael Behe calls "irreducibly complex." These are the jumps that could not have been made with the evolutionary theory. Vision for one. The anatomy of the eye is possible to have been affected by the minor changes of microevolution, but the biochemistry of vision, and the creation of the eye itself cannot be explained in the perimeters of macroevolution. The blood clotting system and the flagellum (bacterial whip-like structure used for movement) are also "irreducibly complex" in that they are composed of a series of proteins that without any one of them, would be worthless. In this way, the evolutionary process could not gradually add one protein at a time because it would be functionless until completed. The flagellum for example, is composed of 50 unique proteins. Any combination of any 49 of these could not create an opporatable flagellum, and therefor could not have evolved piece by piece as macroevolution proclaims. This aspect of the theory of evolution is full of errors and fallacies that slip by without question. And this frames some pretty hefty problems in the entirety of the theory.

That's not to say the theory is wrong however. It's just to say that it's still a theory, testable and rewriteable. What the actual evidence does seem to indicate, is some form of an intelligent designer. A governer of evolution. This is the aspect that isn't testable within the boundaries of science, however. And this is where scientists try to take it. But once it leaves the physically testable universe, it falls into another field. Metaphysics, math, and history are three of these common languages to assess the believability of truth outside of science.

Keep in mind that I'm not attempting to be persuasive in any way. I'm just saying that you shouldn't take all science at face value, absent of any skepticism. Just look at what the information actually indicates.