Okay, so you are questioning evolution.

But as I said, this is certainly the strangest way I’ve eve seen anyone go about it. Because you’re so vague about it that I don’t think the majority of your readers have even picked up on the fact that you’re challenging evolution.

An idea is not right because it is a collective consensus.

I agree, 100%. No one in the scientific community accepts the truth of evolution on the basis of, “Well, everyone says it’s true, so it must be.” There is overwhelming consensus because there is overwhelming evidence.

Of course the consensus has been wrong before, but that doesn’t mean the methodology was wrong. Why has consensus changed in the past, then? Because new evidence came to light.

The amount of evidence we have in support of evolution is staggering. The geneticist Francis Collins — himself a devout Christian — has stated that the DNA evidence for evolution is so conclusive that we don’t even need the fossil record. If we had never discovered a single fossil, the DNA evidence alone proves evolution.

But I do agree with you that the structure of my argument is a bit bizarre. That doesn’t make the argument wrong though.

What makes the argument wrong is that you’re challenging an established scientific principle with a philosophical argument. Even if the logic of that argument were flawless — and I don’t believe that it is, but that’s neither here nor there — the entire approach is not even relevant to the issue.

If you want to challenge scientific consensus, you need to challenge the evidence which led to that consensus.

So let’s have a discussion about the evidence.

Which parts of the scientific evidence for evolution do you take issue with, and why?