Peer reviewed study published in Science Journal turns out to be fraud.

[Anomalocaris]

On the contrary, virtually every result in science will be subjected to repeated efforts at duplication, not only shortly after the publication but down through the ages when the result could be of any relevance to any other scientific inquiry.     Even now newton's results in duplication are still sought every day in huge array of experiments and inqueries, and any deviation, real or through experimental error, rigorously investigated.    Were you brain dead during your education years or were you "home schooled" such that you could be unaware of this?

when did any of you co-religionists attempt to duplicate virgin birth and resurrection?

"Down through the ages", is pretty much irrelevant as it is the implications of the beliefs held to be true by society today which decide what is studied in the future.
"Shortly after the publication", is also wrong for the vast majority, as many studies are highly exclusive, they cannot be recreated by independent groups. Take the LHC, how can someone endeavor to recreate their results? Only the people already at the LHC can, and they're the same people who did the original study, or if not, they are still paid by the same interests.

The virgin birth and resurrection are not naturalistic thesis. Were you brain dead during your education years or were you "home schooled" such that you could be unaware of this?

What science studies may be influenced by what society hold to be true, but how science studies it is not comstrained by what society holds to be true. This is how science can rigorously examine what society holds to be true and call it false. This is how a Christian society can, in its hubris, think it can subjugate science into another servant for Christianity, and yet science can call Christianity false.

Highly exclusive studies are in fact examined by rival groups who look for different explanations for the phenomenon under study. PEople at LHC are not people who all want the same resultss, as your Christians all want God to exist regardless of what evidence say. In fact they want different, muturally exclusive results. That's why they rigorously examine the evidence, including the evidence of what others in the group say had been achieved as evidentiary result.

To say something is not a naturalistic thesis is the same as saying bullshit. That is what you would have learned were you not brain dead. And no, I was not home schooled. Which is why I am better than you.