Atheists often speak triumphantly of changeability and malleability as being that which distinguishes science from Christianity, a statement which the credulous are all too eager to imbibe. But the reality is that both have fundamental principles upon which all other activities and the inferences of each depend and which do not change. The former takes its principles (which must be taken on faith) and uses them to navigate the natural world, whereas the latter uses the truth (also taken on faith) to navigate the universe of morality. As is the case with many of the most cherished arguments of the 'new' atheists, the comparison is a false one. It’s akin to someone faulting Euclidean geometry for not being ‘malleable.’ The axioms thereof cannot be proven. The best that can be done is to validate that there is merit in them.