"He presupposes that a naturalistic explanation can be found. This is hardly unbiased research."
Your comment makes zero sense. It has to be a natural explanation because supernatural explanations cannot be described by scientific methods. If they were, they wouldn't be supernatural.
You are again assuming the conclusion. While science may not be able to prove a supernatural cause this does not mean that there must therefore be a natural one. Indeed, at present all science can now say is that a natural cause for the origin of life has not been shown.
By analogy I cannot show nuclear reactions by the laws of chemistry. If my tools of research were limited to chemistry it would not allow me to say that there must be a chemical explanation that has yet to be discovered. Without a knowledge of atomic particles I could at best say that there might be an unknown chemical explanation.
Similarly, at best the natural sciences can at best say that there might be a natural explanation for the origin of life. Then again, there might not.
If observations can be made, how does a supernatural explanation fall outside the realm of the scientific method?
In other words, if a supernatual explanation leaves an observable footprint, then it can be tested via the scientific method.
Science is a search for truth. Evos beg off that concept; but, if something can be known for certain and is observeable, it is truth. Even if it can't be aptly mechanically explained, step by step, it is truth.
Titanic sank after striking an iceberg. The position where she came to rest was unknown for years. And the exact nature of the damage to her was unknown for years. Specificity was no constraint to authoring countless books on the subject. Nor was it a constraint on official and unofficial commentary with regard to the subject. Not knowing something is not a crime. Knowing something and dealing with it in a dishonest manner is something of a criminal act IMO. And thusly we end up with terms like "Paraconformity" (unrelated to the titanic example for those from rio linda). The point is, that truth is the end goal - what we can know. Nobody would fault science for not knowing how God specifically does something. But the egos involved are insulted that something might be smarter than them and that they might have to answer to him in the end.
God isn't excluded because miracles can't be explained. If they could be explained, they wouldn't be miracles. And people do accept miracles as truth. Evos, on the other hand, can't accept "truth" for truth if it means admitting their theory is wrong. So, it's a paraconformity and we won't discuss it. Label it and play stupid. Bias must be maintained while acting as though there is none. And as with the MSM, the EVO community seems the only one that isn't aware there is bias. It's so absurd as to be funny.. or is that so funny as to be absurd? Evolution isn't science.. it's a religion. It doesn't belong in the classroom and it will leave the classroom. This latest report is the beginning of the end for them. Evos have begged off the origins issue at every turn because it is "outside of science". They beg off of miracles for the same reason. So now science is dealing with something "outside of the realm of science" because they see the indians coming over the uneven grounds of little bighorn.. They may at least make a pretense of it; but, it won't help. There is no evidence for Evolution. Evolution is counter to common sense. And it is under assault on all levels by the facts eg the truth about the Grand Canyon etc. The grand charade is heading for the ash heap of history.