those who believe in fluffy pink unicorns can believe whatever they want, philosophize however they want, without need for corrupting empirical science to suit their fancy.
that is the point: they already have their own little stomping grounds.
empirical science is rooted in rigidly following the evidence. that is its central definitional axiom. Another is that a specific chain of events will produce consistent results through repeated iterations. A corollary of that second axiom is that if a specific chain of events produces an anomalous result, that anomaly is evidence of a cause which can be empirically ferreted out and brought into scientific understanding.
These defining axioms lead to little things like "an object at rest or in motion remains at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an external force" and "energy output never exceeds energy input", and a myriad other such little things like that which allow us to understand how physical systems work in an applicable manner. Things which neither philosophy nor theology have never managed to accomplish.
and that is ALL that science aspires to do: explain the function of physical systems.
"Miracles" of the sort to which Lewontin refers, if they ever occur, are by their nature not vulnerable to empirical study. There'd be no point in attempting to explain them because -again, assuming they happen- they'd be in direct violation of the second naturalistic axiom listed above.
And, dismissing the charitable assumption, there is no evidence that such miracles in fact occur.
Plenty of testimony and apocrypha, sure.
Much of which is sincere. A lot of it faked. A lot of it contradictory.
Roswell with a halo, if you will.
Unless and until there is *evidence*, science must treat miracles as unsubstantiated assertions. What science must NOT do is allow anyone to get lazy, to insert "and then, some unknown event of unknown character at an unknown location and time caused untraceable and unevidenced effects which led to such-and-such observed result" any time the empirical process stumps them.
Philosophers, theologians, and navel-fetishists have that luxury.
Scientists do not, and must not.
Cewrtainly not just to make anempiricists all snug and comfy in their respective fantasies.
The insistence that empirical science abandon its essential nature to suit their sport is not simply stupid, but rude, vain, and greedy.
correction: "Things which neither philosophy nor theology have EVER managed to accomplish."
At bottom, the difference between us is how we know what we know and how sure we are that we know it (epistemology.)
Some, for instance, only value knowledge which derives from sensory experience, a trusted mentor, a consensus of a group of experts and reasoning.
But my greatest source of knowledge is spiritual. I’m more certain of that knowledge than any other kind of knowledge, including reasoning and sensory perception. And trusting mentors is waaay down on my list - #8 as I recall.
You ask for evidence of God. He lives in me and I live in Him – I’ve known him for nigh onto a half century. He brings the Scriptures alive in me as my eyes scan the words. And that’s not counting all the personal miracles. Evidence?! Jeepers, anyone in my shoes for only a second, would never again ask for evidence. LOL!
But that is the way God made it – so that no one could boast. No signs, no finding him by reason alone.
And I'm not asking science to go looking for Him (which would be silly IMHO) - but rather to keep an "open mind" - not start with a philosophy, unnecessary presuppositions, reduced boundaries, blueprints into which the conclusion must fit, etc.