@dga471 and @jongarvey there is a surprisingly strong claim made in footnotes by Hardin:
For scientists, lack of positive evidence is usually a reason not to favor a hypothesis on the grounds of parsimony[xx]. However, if one’s hermeneutical and theological commitments seem to require a recent, de novo created A&E who are UGAs, then one’s demand for positive evidence may become less important and one’s tolerance for low probability events that have not been disproven increases.[xxi] Physics graduate student Daniel Ang, a moderator on the Peaceful Science forum, encapsulates this essential difference in GAE’s approach well, and I refer interested readers to his discussion.
[xxi] This is why, contrary to how secular scientists might approach this topic, Swamidass says (p. 76), “to demonstrate genealogical isolation, one has to prove that absolutely zero successful immigration has taken place over thousands of years.” I do not know of a way to achieve the “absolutely zero” criterion for any historical science, the problem of detectability notwithstanding. This is a standard that virtually all scientific hypotheses cannot meet.
I find it really interesting that I made neutral statement of fact:
to demonstrate genealogical isolation, one has to prove that absolutely zero successful immigration has taken place over thousands of years.
Hardin reads this as evidence I am breaking the rules of secular science. It is true that historical science can’t achieve the “absolutely zero” criterion, but this hardy a fair indictment of my methodology to note that this is what is required to demonstrate genealogical isolation. This is why the genealogical isolation of Tasmania is essentially outside the view of evidence.
How is explaining this brute fact a deviation from secular science?
Contrary to Hardin, I do believe I am approaching this topic as a secular scientist.