The Babylon Bee stings its way into the evolution debate

Excellent OP. Martin_r and Denyse, you always make me :) Thanks for another day of 'News'! Truthfreedom

Martin_r It is very important to differentiate betwen what science is and what philosophical materialism/ atheism "deduces" from the findings of science (philosophical "materialism" being then just an unwarranted belief). One that preys on fools to be more precise. What science is concerned with:

(1) there is an objective extramental universe shared by all rational observers (2) the universe is governed by uniform natural laws that make it orderly and comprehensible (3) such orderly reality can be discovered through scientific observation and experimentation (4) nature is in principle rationally intelligible

All the philosophical baggage materialists force upon science to make their silly superstition look as "legit/ true":

(5) mental entities, such as theories, mathematics, ethical values, and so forth, reduce to, or emerge from, neural activities in the brain (6) the universe itself is its own ultimate explanation of its existence and operations (7) nature operates as a blind force acting according to fixed laws with no purpose (8) complex things, such as minds and living organisms, are composed of simpler constituents that are reducible to ultimate particles obeying physical laws (9) reason itself is the product of an undersigned process with no intrinsic relation to truth (yet, naturalism is claimed to be true) (10) all things are either physical in nature, or else, depend upon or emerge from physical entities. (Of course, emergentism violates the principle of causality by assuming that you can get being from non-being.)

While (1-4) are necessary premises of natural science, the remainder (5-10) consists of ontological philosophical claims about the world, which—although they talk about the same physical entities that science deals with-- do not, as purely philosophical assertions, derive any authority from natural science.  Meta- physical "materialism" is NOT science. Truthfreedom

Creationism: Man looked around at creation and was like, “Yep, this was definitely designed. Only an idiot would think otherwise.” yes, that is very true. Only an Idiot would think otherwise. Especially, in 21st century, to think, that an autonomous self-navigating flying systems self-designed, with no help from engineers, yes, only an idiot and 19th century scientists could think that this is what happened. Moreover, these Darwinian scientists claim, that these sophisticated autonomous self-navigating flying systems self-designed several times independently... (insects, dinos, birds, mammals) By the way, to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system in a size of a fruit fly, it is even in 21st century an engineering SCI-FI. an engineering SCI-FI. an engineering SCI-FI. But biologists (natural science graduates) have their Darwinian religion, that allows to believe in really really absurd things. This theory is not only very absurd, but it is also very offensive, all engineers should stand up. martin_r

"birds with different sizes of beaks which of course can only mean God is dead. " yeah, like to have different beak sizes on the same head would be something simple (from an engineering point of view) ... but for a biologist, everything is simple and easy to do, because a biologist never made anything ... It is like in some mental hospital ... martin_r

Seversky, we are agnostic about whether CNN purchased "Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News Before Publication" but can't imagine attempting to fact check the story. News

So you are comfortable with shielding certain claims from being checked for factual accuracy? This does not include claims from evolutionary biology, of course. They are fair game, I assume. So what are the criteria for deciding what should be checked and what shouldn't? Seversky