Fundamentally, to insist on "science-based information" exclusively is itself an indication of a preferred "conceptual belief system." It is tantamount to saying: "I wish to exclude other belief systems, for I will brook no rivals to my own."
If macroevolution is true, then it doesn't need to be "defended" by closing it off to questions or challenges. Indeed, I was taught that this is the very means by which scientific knowledge advances.
Indeed, that is correct. Such challenges are mounted and welcomed. I suspect that you understand that IDism is not a challenge to macroevolution. Instead, it is a challenge to the nature of science. Macroevolution is simply the rallying point, the reason for questioning science.
BB, my constant delight! I think you go to far with that statement. What the scientist is saying is more like: "Give me a theory based on evidence I can see, and reasoning I can follow, and I will consider it science. If you give me only your unsupported conjectures, based on your feelings, that's fine, and I may even share your views; but we both know it's not science."
IMHO, hostile resistance to inquiry is prima facie cause for inquiry – no matter the subject: evolution, campaign finance, product specifications, etc.
What the scientist is saying is more like: "Give me a theory based on evidence I can see, and reasoning I can follow, and I will consider it science. If you give me only your unsupported conjectures, based on your feelings, that's fine, and I may even share your views; but we both know it's not science."You're saying the scientist is being unscientific by not considering "other" sources. But of course he's only being scientific. To yield to a demand to include hopelessly unverifiable material (visions, dreams, possession by spirits, and materials produced under such influences) would be unscientific.