P. Z. Myers is on the rampage again (is he ever not on the rampage?), this time about the fact that Ken Ham (of Creation Museum fame) recently was invited to speak to a Pentagon prayer breakfast. Myers was particularly upset about Ham's comment that there is no extraterrestrial life according to the Bible.
Ham's position is untenable, of course, but it got me thinking...
I would submit that Ham is no less inconsistent in his position than many of Myers' allies are in theirs. Ham drastically overstate his case: the Bible just simply doesn't say anything about extra-terrestrial life. But many people who share Myers' scientistic mindset (I'm thinking of Carl Sagan here), and who spend so much time preaching to the rest of us about the importance of sticking to the evidence, seem to be little short of convinced that there is extra-terrestrial life--despite the fact that there is no evidence for it.
Now if the Bible doesn't say anything about extra-terrestrial life, the actual scientific evidence doesn't say much more than that. In fact, I wonder, is the Drake Equation any more scientific, under the criteria for such things as set forth by people like Myers, than Intelligent Design?
And if so, why wasn't Sagan considered as unwelcome in academia as the ID advocates are?