[GourmetDan]

"Apparently the only evidence I'm allowed to consider in assessing his arguments is evidence that doesn't contradict them. Did you stack that deck to get a foregone conclusion just so you can berate me about the results?"

Your error is that you consider only people's opinions that support your position as being 'evidence'. That's a line of thinking often encountered among evolutionists.

Evidence, in this case, would be scientific theories not based on the philosophy of naturalism, like ID. Since philosophical naturalism (i.e. 'science') considers any mention of a designer to be religion, Lewontin's statement is true.

[tacticalogic]

Evidence, in this case, would be scientific theories not based on the philosophy of naturalism, like ID. Since philosophical naturalism (i.e. 'science') considers any mention of a designer to be religion, Lewontin's statement is true.

The statement says they have an a priori committment to naturalism, and you submit that this is philosophical or metaphysical naturalism, and that he speaks for all scientists.

Theories would only inovolve methadological naturalism. For his statement to be true in the terms you specify they must be atheists. That's the test. He fails.