Justin, Justin, Justin… what are we going to do with you?! This may stand as the biggest mistake you’ve ever made in the history of your cartoonist career. You’re writing as if you haven’t the faintest idea about who believes what and why (and so far, you have at least one reader who seems about as clueless), whether there is any validity to any of those claims, or who is actually raising the skepticism and why.Well, part of my profession day-to-day is finding out who believes what and why about such things, when necessary. People aren’t all of a piece on any one of these issues and lumping the people and the issues together like this (even through the lips of such a total airhead as Boody) is almost criminal. I’m honestly shocked that you would stoop so low.It would take an essay to go through Boody’s allegations but I’ll just limit myself to two. Most people who are accused of objecting to “science” aren’t objecting to anything of the kind. They object, and rightly so, to the philosophical stances of scientism and naturalism being put forward as if they were one and the same thing, or else logically demanded by, the discipline of natural science. The truth is quite otherwise and always has been . Natural science points to intelligent design and special creation via Occam’s Razor, although not 6,000 years ago (something the Bible doesn’t say either, in fact – but you have to know Biblical Hebrew very well to demonstrate why the mistranslations exist).The other thing I’ll mention here has to do with radiometric dating. There are good scientific reasons to be skeptical of it and there are die-hard evolutionists as well as creationists who are so accordingly. But have you ever heard of “confirmation bias”? It’s a very real concern in the scientific community and it happens to be rampant when it comes to anything challenging the predominant worldview of scientism/naturalism/evolutionism. Even evolutionists can’t get contrarian evidence published save on rare occasions and they’re criticized even when they do.