So, @terrellclemmons, I’ve been thinking about this, and want to start my answer.
First of all, opposing scientific arguments for God is very far from the motivating factor for PS’s creation. As the creator of PS, the key goals have been:
-
Forming a community grounded in science, that would also welcomed and celebrated differences.
-
Offering the public a sympathetic entry point to engage with secular (meaning “fair”) scientists, so they can understand how we come to conclusions, and why we conclude what we conclude.
-
To create opportunities for scientists to understand the concerns of the broader public, who are often theologically minded, young earth or old earth creationists, and intelligent design.
-
Encourage a confessional approach, where personal beliefs are dignified and brought to the surface, while keeping science secular.
The key event that sparked our formation had nothing to do with ID, actually. It was being kicked out of BioLogos, because they did not like my case for de novo creation of Adam. They now agree I was correct, but this disaster of an exchange revealed we have an incompatible set of values, and they are more driven by theology than science, and I do not agree with their theology.
(@jordan, that is part of the reason I insist on distancing myself from EC)
Since then we have grown quite a bit, received our first grant, and I just submitted my book to my publisher. Rejecting scientific arguments for God is not our purpose.
So why do we argue against scientific arguments for God? I think @nwrickert has it right:
In science we have ruthlessly high standards. It is part of our culture to shred arguments, because we believe that good arguments, those based correctly on evidence, will survive.
I actually think there are some reasonable “Suggestive” arguments for God in science. I even offer these argument often (but not like ID). However, the only way to be taken seriously in science is by ruthlessly shedding bad arguments. The parable of “crying wolf” is helpful. We despise as unscientific when people throw bad arguments at us, never retracting factual errors, never acknowledging when they are wrong.
The reason I argue against bad arguments for God is because, if I don’t, no one in science will trust me when I make my case in other ways. It is an issue of basic trust. If and when ID comes up with factually sound and solid argument, using the rules of science that I know, I will be among the first to acknowledge it. They are fairly far from this at this time.
As for others, scientists are largely fair. For example, see @John_Harshman’s response here: Would God's Guidance Be DNA-Detectable? - #32. I would characterize this as a successful argument that makes space for God’s action, without demonstrating it true.
I would also characterize the Genealogical Adam and Eve, with de novo creation of Adam and Eve, a successful argument that makes space or God’s action, without demonstrating it true.
These, in important ways, are very strong arguments for a Christian point of view, and they even convince atheist scientists. They are important too, so I do not want to pollute them with bad arguments for God. A reputation for making (or even tolerating) dumb arguments will just get me black balled. That is the ruthless reality fo science. Far from disliking it, I respect this. It makes me a better thinker. It also demonstrates that scientists really are not anti-God or anti-religious. We just ferociously hate bad arguments.