Sometimes the important thing about an issue that seems to challenge creation is the way we look at it…

Steve Irwin’s death from a stingray was a national tragedy. The feedback on our report allowed teaching points on a number of issues.

Many abortion defenders hate to see abortion defined as what it is, baby-killing. The feedback response explains that the nature of the unborn is crucial to the debate; returning people to this key point defeats most pro-abortion rationalizations.

The origin of the first living organism is a huge problem for materialists. Agnostic DB of California agrees that creationist critiques are strong, but argues that ribozyme ‘evolution’ might solve the problem; Dr Sarfati responds.

This woolgrower reckons the handy ‘mutation’ which leaves sheep bald in the crutch area is readily explained by existing genetic variation in sheep.

Feedback from Scotland: not only was Dan Brown’s interpretation of Leonardo’s The Last Supper ‘flaky’, but the brilliant artist himself erred.

This week we feature two recent ‘friendly feedbacks’ to CMI, the first with a dash of humour, and the second an encouragement to keep emphasizing accuracy over sensationalism.

A physiology student takes issue with our points on the role of biases and assumptions behind dating methods. However, he failed to study what he was criticising.

A reader had seen information that bone marrow donors are best accepted within the same ethnic groupings, and was puzzled as to why that would be so, given the close relatedness of all people groups, and presumably knowing what we had previously written about evolution and ‘race’.

Physics teacher questions some of our astrophysical claims, but his main problem is the old canard of lack of publication in secular journals and the misunderstanding of the role of the paradigm in interpreting data.

A young supporter asks some questions about young-earth evidence raised by an evolutionary debater. The response points out some of the evolutionist’s misunderstandings and even outright errors, and the role of axioms in the debate.

Supporter feels out of his depth on nuclear chemistry but is still a match for his prof.