Scientists' arguments that free will is an illusion typically begin by assuming that free will, by definition, requires an immaterial soul or non-physical mind, and they take neuroscience to provide evidence that our minds are physical.
The government has not yet responded to the scientists' arguments.
Finally, on the silliness point, ID has a collection of arguments that are just as silly as the creation scientists' arguments about dinosaur footprints and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The scientists's argument is simple: Sending large shipments of food to single places encourages "thugs" to steal and sell it, and distributing the massive packages puts soldiers in harm's way by requiring them first to maintain order.
Interestingly, this talking point, at least in the form of a seemingly technical chemical/mathematical conclusion (there are older, more informal versions throughout the creationist literature), was invented in the 1984 proto-ID book The Mystery of Life's Origins (Thaxton et al. 1984), as a modified version of the creation scientists' Second Law argument (Matzke 2009).
On the other horn, if Bayesians wish to divorce scientific inference from "autobiographical" considerations, a natural way to proceed is by insisting that scientific inference is best captured in a Bayesian framework, but argue that when scientists produce arguments what they are doing is arguing about what confidences other inquirers objectively should have, by loosely Bayesian lights.
The implication is that argumentation plays a central role in the building of explanations, models and theories (Siegel 1989) as scientists use arguments to relate the evidence they select to the claims they reach through use of warrants and backings (Toulmin 1958).
This could be achieved in a classroom setting by showing examples of scientists constructing arguments, and then conducting a class-wide discussion of a similar question and its answers using an argumentation framework (such as Toulmin's), guided by the instructor.
That the question proposed here makes no sense to the scientist qua scientist is no argument against it.
But climate scientists reject that argument, saying it is like claiming that a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom cannot have much effect.
