Thoughts in a Haystack

Brian C. Melton, Assistant Professor of History at Liberty University, is over at Intellectual Conservative trying to twist the cap off of another bottle of Expelled whine.

As usual, there is talk about the "naturalistic biases" of scientists, without any explanation of how unnaturalistic "explanations" could be tested ... testing being the sine qua non of science. Another complaint is that "Darwinists" only pretend to

"... have a real standard of evidence in mind and, if ID could meet it, they would allow ID into the hallowed realm of science. ... Intentionally and notably absent from most of these statements is any indication of how much or what kind of data would be "sufficient" to convince them."

There is a simple standard -- the very one evolution was able to meet -- ID advocates must present enough evidence for a testable theory to convince at least a sizable minority of the socially, culturally and religiously diverse scientific community that ID is a scientific programme worth pursuing.

Melton expends much other caterwauling over how "Darwinists" supposedly equate "science" with "reality." There is more than a kernel of truth to that charge in the case of some over-enthusiastic boosters of science. But, on the other hand, who can really blame them, given how vastly our knowledge of the world has expanded thanks to that science? But the truly silly thing Melton says is this:

Why are [Darwinists] not willing to allow that other intelligent people should be permitted to hold to a position that critiques Neo-Darwinism from a profoundly different perspective ...

They do allow it, of course. That "profoundly different perspective" is called "religion" and few, if any, "Darwinists" attempt to stop Melton or anyone else from exercising their faith.

Just because people like Melton have this terrible suspicion that their religion really is inferior to science is no warrant for them to pretend it is science.
.