you are missing the point the phrase you quote is in a summary of other scholars' arguments when summarizing the view of a sub group we are not supposed to render our opinion on whether their arguments are valid nor do we decide whether to include their views on the basis of whether their views are consistent with wikipedia editorial policy if a substantial minority of scholars argued that julius caesar's astrological chart ought to be considered historical evidence it would be incumbent upon wikipedia to report that in the relevant article an absurd example but i hope it illustrates how you are missing the point furthermore as for the scholars' argument itself they are not arguing against methodological naturalism or history as an empirical science in fact many evangelicals offer mounds of evidence convincing or otherwise for their views including single authorship of isaiah that adhere to methodological naturalism and empirical science see kenneth kitchen's on the reliability of the old testament eerdmans for the most significant example rather by outmoded modernist presuppositions evangelicals typically refer to practices and assumptions of source critics that are even now recognized as obsolete by secular scholars for instance the assumptions held by former adherents of the documentary hypothesis are now rejected leading to neo documentary hypothesis proponents e g jeffery stackert at university of chicago that rely less on such outdated methods and assumptions in other words nothing i wrote was intentionally biased rather it was intended to remove bias and to update the article to reflect the true situation in the academy