That's a rather strong claim.
Have you looked under every rock?
Cheers!
If you're going to be a secular skeptic, you should have a reason for skepticism that doesn't come from ICR. Most people don't know Lucy's knee was found a mile from her skull and some layers higher or lower, I forget. (And anyway, it wasn't.)
Most people don't know Java Man was a giant gibbon. (And anyway, it wasn't.)
Most people ...
Well, you get the idea. I try to model what a secular skeptic would actually say. If he's really not that religious about religion, he probably doesn't think science is a religion. (The people who think everything is about religion tend to be pretty religious.)
You might say Stephen Jay Gould was almost but not quite a secular skeptic early in his career. In his arguments of the early and mid-1970s with more hidebound types he said some things which are still being quote-mined (but they were actually pretty original.)
I think that's a key. He would be original. He would be aware of the evidence and not bludgeoning with his ignorance of it.
The time is passing for such an individual to make sense, to not be an oxymoron. The 90s and this decade have brought us feathered dinosaurs, walking whales, a legged sirenian, more and more molecular data... There's too much evidence for evolution out there for someone to reject it--someone who has the motivation to study science and a lack of motivation from religious horror.