Replies

It is a non sequitur that a person committed to philosophical naturalism in the creation of 'scientific' theories must also be an atheist. It is simply a rule of the game.

You're arguing there is personal, a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, above and beyond simply what is required for scientific work. Philosophical naturalism denies the existence of supernatural forces or beings. That is what Lewontin describes, and what you are attribute to all scientists, even in their private lives outside the lab, just like Lewinton.

The only issue is whether science generates any theories that are not based on philosophical naturalism.

It is to you, and that's why you have to reject all the evidence that doesn't support Lewinton's assertions that all scientists share his committment to that philosophy. You are apparently going to be Lewontin's conterpart in this. If he's determined not to let a divine foot in the door, then you're going to be determined to force it there.

"You're arguing there is personal, a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, above and beyond simply what is required for scientific work. Philosophical naturalism denies the existence of supernatural forces or beings. That is what Lewontin describes, and what you are attribute to all scientists, even in their private lives outside the lab, just like Lewinton."

Nice try, but the commitment doesn't have to be personal in every single case for the statement to hold true. Arguing that finding exceptions who conform to the rule but supposedly do not conform to the philosophical requirement doesn't change the outcome. That is the converse fallacy of accident. We see philosophical naturalism in every single origins theory proposed by 'science' without exception. It is the outcome that proves the rule.

"It is to you, and that's why you have to reject all the evidence that doesn't support Lewinton's assertions that all scientists share his committment to that philosophy."

There is no evidence that doesn't support Lewontin's statement. This is why you focus on the individual beliefs as though finding an exception invalidates the fact that all origins theories are philosophically natural. It does not. All origins theories are philosophically natural and Lewontin's statement is confirmed by that evidence.

"You are apparently going to be Lewontin's conterpart in this. If he's determined not to let a divine foot in the door, then you're going to be determined to force it there."

I am not forcing any divine foot into any door. I merely point out that the 'theories' of science are, without exception, based on philosophical naturalism. That point stands on it's own and your move toward the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief is just that, another fallacy.