Well at least you are honest about putting forth your religion because it is your religion rather than sneaking around pretending to be "objectively neutral" like these other fakes.
You'll always demand absolute proof from science, and accept without any proof anything in the Bible. Fine.
Absolute proof is an interesting concept -- but not attainable by human minds. I'm quite happy to go by best available evidence. Religion just doesn't happen to measure up in that criteria. Sorry.
If you could tell so much about me from the little you've read on FR, it's no wonder you think you can see "massive amounts of evidence" for whatever you have decided must be true. Let's examine some more evidence...
I have never seen what I would call "absolute proof" for conservation of momentum, but I believe in it. Nor have I ever seen "absolute proof" for the thermonuclear source of sunlight, but I don't dispute it--even with the missing neutrinos. In fact, we know that it is impossible to prove that any humanly comprehensible axiom system for arithmetic is logically consistent, but I believe that Peano's axioms are consistent. I even believe--since it also cannot be proven--that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatization of Set Theory is consistent. I believe in the Axiom of Choice, even though it requires me to accept the Banach-Tarski paradox. On the other hand, since I believe in the consistency of ZF, I must also believe in the consistency of ZF plus the Axiom of Constructibility. I do believe in its consistency, but I don't believe it is true. How about you?
But as a good evolutionist, you are free to ignore any and all contradictory evidence and continue to spout your lies about me.
I'm quite happy to go by best available evidence. Religion just doesn't happen to measure up in that criteria.
But are you, or are you not, evaluating all the evidence (good, better, best) on the basis of an a priori assumption of materialism as Lewontin says? If so, it would only be expected that (theistic) religion would not fare well by your criteria.
More remarkable is your reluctance to admit your own religion (atheistic? materialistic?), and its unavoidable effect on your interpretation of evidence.