I find the “skeptic” claim on the part of Darwinian materialists very interesting and equally illuminating. Darwinists exhibit no skepticism whatsoever about the thesis that physical stuff turned into Mozart by chance. (Don’t try to deny this, Darwinists, that is the essence of your claim. You can try to obfuscate with legion “peer-reviewed scientific papers,” but you’re not going to fool me and many others about what you are actually promoting and advocating.)
I choose Mozart not just because I am a classical concert pianist, but because his existence epitomizes everything that Darwinian theory is totally powerless to explain.
Darwinists, claiming to be skeptics, actually exhibit the antithesis of skepticism — making transparently ludicrous claims and providing a never-ending stream of unsupported extrapolations, based only on wildly imaginative speculation with no empirical support.
How is it that Darwinian atheists are the only ones who get to declare themselves legitimate skeptics? Is mud-to-Mozart-by-chance philosophy the only worldview immune to skeptical inquiry?