That doesn’t sound like a definite no.

What’s the evidence that it’s “more likely that freethinkers or skeptics are attracted to science than that science creates atheists”? And the more eminent a scientist (at least measured by, e.g., membership in the National Academy of Sciences or Nobel prizewinners), the less likely they are to believe in God; likewise for more formal education. How is this pattern consistent with self-selection rather than the result of education? Is it evidence of discrimination by nonbelievers in the NAS, the Nobel committee, and academic hiring committees?

Matt Young also writes that “Leuba predicted that increasing scientific knowledge would lead to increasing disbelief. That prediction is apparently (at least partly) correct.” How is that evidence for a “no” answer?

In his conclusion, he writes “Paul Strode and I tried to show that science is not necessarily incompatible with religion, though it certainly falsifies the specific claims of some religions.” But “science is not necessarily incompatible with religion” is *consistent* with the claim that science (and education) are factors that increase disbelief.

Am I missing something? Nobody thinks that *all* scientists are atheists, or that you can’t be a scientist without being an atheist, or that science *necessitates* atheism or agnosticism, but it looks like that’s all that’s refuted here.