Let us suppose that Gould and Dawkins claim that the scientific data scientifically proves marcroevolution, and also proves that God played no role in biological history. Specialists in philosophy of science properly nail Johnson on this point. Johnson should withdraw that particular claim. The Christian scientists offer theological and theistic philosophical reasons to support their belief. Christian scientists say that these critics just don't understand how science works and don't understand the scientific data.
Discussion breaks down and much yelling ensues.
Well, perhaps this example isn't so hypothetical. I'm only trying to identify a rarely recognized decision-making factor. Intution is not logic. For the specialists out there, I would ask they remember that appeals to the primary literature and specific data are occasionally useful for settling minor, narrowly focussed questions. They are hardly ever an important factor in settling the big questions.