Historical "mainstream science" taking on the tone, more and more, of an extreme fanatical religion.

In the last few days I have come across various material that has blown me away with it's level of vitriole.

[Note: As a background, I might point out that I've just finished reading Signature in the Cell and I was thoroughly impressed with the quality of the discussion therein.  Although it was not from a Biblical creationist perspective (which, BTW, is where I'm come from), I would recommend it to anyone. Essentialy the book is looking at the chance factor involving the postulated 'abiogeneration' of life - also called chemical evolution.  In the end there are only two proposals to explain the origin of life: (1) an intelligent designer or (2) the "chance hypothesis" - chemical evolution.  Meyers, with careful and meticulous reasoning, shows that the chances are vanishingly small for the second hypothesis.  Not that it CAN'T happen, as anything with a finite possibility CAN indeed happen - it's just that we routinely reject "chance hypotheses" for things that have vanishingly small probabilities in our day to day lives.  So why not in this case also?  Meyers give many everyday examples and analogies to back up his careful reasoning.  A MUST READ IMHO! ]

The response of "mainstream science" to such carefully reasoned and presented material looks increasingly like the rantings of an angry drunken mob, or perhaps a fanatical terrorist religion. For example, this author who has no affinity whatsoever for ID or creationism has noted the extreme level of vitriole that seems to be happenning - have a peek at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/12/creation...  "But American ID battles are powerful catalysts of this near hysterical tone too. Do academics – not least analytical philosophers, who stand or fall on their cool – want to be so readily swept up by it too?" and "But against the backdrop of ID, philosophers start citing David Hume as if his treatises were infallible scripture, and start accusing their peers of virtual heresy for allowing even the possibility of a defence of miracles."

Or have a look P.Z. Meyers in his Pharyngular blog (note the general irrational tone of hatred from both P.Z and his commentors):

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/01/i-am-honestly-hap... 

As yuo read through, you might note the level of vitriole, innuendo, and character assination. Facts an REAONED ARGUMENTS are notably absent.

See also how the editors of Sysntese magazine had to apologise for the tone and unprofessionalism of a special edition prepared by ID hateing zealots (who are also representatives of "mainstream science"):

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/new_york_times_article_refutes...

f ever I had any doubts about whether I am on the right side or not (not likely anyway), this this sort of IRRATIONAL FANATICISM coming from the halls of "mainstream historical science" absolutely gives me any direction that I could (hypothetically) be lacking. I'll (of course) go with the carefully reasoned arguments, and avoid the irrational vitriole.  At the moment that clearly means running with ID, and of course it's subset - Biblical creation.....