Thanks for the comment @paulnelson. I think, also that @patrick probably agrees (don’t you?). I think the point is more about not misrepresenting scientific authority to promote our personal beliefs, and being good at navigating “the line.”
I’ll point out too the particular challenge of navigating the issue of de novo Adam, which does posit (non-scientifically) de novo creation, in order to examine how it interacts with genetic evidence (scientifically, at least aside from the de novo part). This is straddling the line in a way I’ve never quite had to do before, and I do have to trust poeple not misrepresent me in this. Also, I emphasize always that this is not scientific evidence for a de novo Adam, but merely showing there is no evidence against it.
I think one distinction between me, and the vast majority of my colleagues, is that I see value in this line-straddling question. They probably just do not care, though they probably do not oppose asking it, and would think I’ve approached it with high rigor. Though, if this contributes towards peace, I think most people will appreciate it, including atheists.