Is Science Hindered by Scientists Limiting the Scope of their Reserach?
Over at ARN's ID Update David Tyler is considering the sad situation in science where ID is ruled out a priori and Darwinian explanations are ruled in.
More importantly, it is good practice in science to consider multiple hypotheses and to find ways of evaluating them. One often notes arguments by Darwinians making the claim: "an intelligent designer would not do it this way", always leading to rejection of the intelligent design hypothesis. Here is a case where there are good reasons, supported by a mathematical model, why an intelligent designer would do it that way.When any potential challenge to the Darwinian argument is excluded, are scientists hindered by limiting the scope of their research?