[tacticalogic]

I think you are referring the fields of methodological science that do not commit the fallacy of assuming that the existence of natural, physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is therefor true. Those would be the technological and applied sciences. As opposed to the 'sciences' that claim to be able to see back into the unobservable past and concoct just-so naturalistic stories based on an 'a priori' commitment to philsophical naturalism..

I think I'm considering "all scientists". That's who you submit Lewontin's comments apply to. Put the goal post down, and leave it there.

Ah yes, you want to assume that Pascal's Wager isn't applicable

I just all 'em like I see 'em.

[GourmetDan]

"I think I'm considering "all scientists". That's who you submit Lewontin's comments apply to."

What you are doing is called the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Clearly Lewontin explains why philosophical naturalism is at the foundation of 'science'. Otherwise, those scientists who propose ID as an explanation would be given equal consideration. The fact that they are dismissed outright shows that the 'scientific community' has an 'a priori' commitment to the philosophy of naturalism.

"Put the goal post down, and leave it there."

Not until you promise to stop moving it.