When opponents of special creation asked about how x arose, they often make a quick web search, come up with the first search result which looks like a " serious " scientific paper, which explains how x evolved, and post it as an answer. When asked to quote the relevant part of the paper, which convinced them evolution was the best answer, commonly they don't answer because they did not make the effort to analyze carefully the proposed evidence. That shows nicely their confirmation bias. They determined already evolution must be true, since it fits their preconceived and wished world view, so all they do is to try to fit everything they find into their naturalistic world view, without carefully looking if the evidence is compelling. Most scientific papers on evolution are perfect examples of how methodological naturalism works and obliges especially historical sciences to wear blinkers. Since evolution is the only naturalistic possible explanation for the biodiversity on earth, evolution is supposed to be the answer right from the beginning, rather start with an agnostic standpoint, and after careful examination, permitting the evidence to lead wherever it is, and propose evolution as the best explanation if that is the outcome that fits best. These papers start with evolution, end with evolution, and in the middle is a not rarely high concentration of guesswork, ad hoc explanations, and fairy tale stories.