Hi Eddie -
It’s always good to converse with you. Sorry I’ve been absent from this discussion for a while; life is like that sometimes.
I’m primarily saying the first (Behe has not yet successfully made his case). However, the second does not strike me as unreasonable. As Polkinghorne has noted, a scientist cannot ever declare that science has proven a miracle; the nature of the scientific method would always suggest that some as yet undiscovered law of nature might exist that would explain the purported miracle. If you’re interested in more details, I’ll provide a more exact citation to Polkinghorne. I’m quite sure it’s in The Polkinghorne Reader.
Actually, the Ph.D. Christian scientists I have known have believed that the evolution of life can be explained by natural mechanisms. They also believe that God designed the universe so that, according to its created order, it would bring forth life. They would probably vote with the 90 rather than the 8.
Of course, my experience is a tiny sample size. Do you have any data that would provide a more reliable basis for answering the question? I would be interested to see if there’s any evidence on the issue, so we don’t have to rely on speculation or highly limited personal experience.
I haven’t done an anthropology of scientific culture, but your description of it does not align with the behavior and attitudes of the scientists I have known. I will readily concede that everyone, scientists included, is heavily influenced by his or her worldview. At the same time, one of the interesting and unique things about science is that both atheists and believers can collaborate productively in the scientific endeavor because discussions of purpose and first cause are set aside. This is manifestly not the case on the humanities side of the campus.
Yet these biologists are still arguing for natural evolutionary mechanisms, correct? I’m not arguing for neo-Darwinism and against the Third Way, neutral theory, etc. Thus I am puzzled why you are citing critiques of neo-Darwinism by proponents of the Third Way or neutral theory. They don’t pertain to the argument that I am making, which is that the community of biologists has overwhelmingly rejected intelligent agency as having any scientific value with respect to the evolution of life. That “good number of biologists” that you cite agree with me on this point, if I am not mistaken.
EDIT: May the peace of God which surpasses all understanding guard your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus, Eddie!