A recent comment to one of the posts on Uncommon Descent states that nothing like an atheistic censorship committee exists to unfairly block out scientific arguments for ID. The comment maintains that ID simply needs to produce a sufficiently compelling argument in order to earn “a seat at the table.”
Let’s run with this a little. Imagine a school cafeteria, with one of those big, long tables where all the popular kids sit for lunch. If you didn’t belong to that crowd, you probably can immediately feel the unspoken barriers that make your attempt to sit at the table most unwelcome.
Now, in the scientific community, the rules are not unspoken. As stated in my book, Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See, (p. 51) the rules are spelled out in bullet-point format. The first one states: “Modern science seeks explanation for observed phenomena that rely solely on natural causes.” As one who has made a career as a physicist for several decades, I would of course concur with this, in general. But what if the observed phenomenon is not consistent with natural causes?
Back to the table…
Would the popular kids (mainstream scientific academies) be open to even considering a conclusion that doesn’t “rely solely on natural causes”? These days, the evidence says, “No.”