[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.

[GourmetDan]

"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."

Which they do. Otherwise ID would be accepted as scientific. ID is the perfect opportunity to refute Lewontin's statement, however the 'scientific' communities reaction to ID merely confirms Lewontin's statement.