Nature's Laws

[Freedom4me]

The unstated assumption of the assertion "atheism is (or ought to be) the default position" certainly sounds like skepticism on its face, but in practice it gets turned (by some atheists) into dogma. 

What dogma specifically does it get turned into?  What assertion are you claiming that (some) atheists make?

(And is what only some atheists do to be considered diagnostic of the whole category 'atheists'?)

No, I'm not saying that what only some atheists do is to be considered diagnostic of all those who call themselves atheists.  The word, "atheism" (until fairly recently) used to mean:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

In recent years, it seems that a different definition has appeared:

a lack of belief in deities.

I'm not sure that I understand the meaning of the second definition, but under the "old" definition, "atheism" is clearly a dogmatic belief in stark contrast with skepticism.

---

Expect the bacterial flagellum in 3... 2... 1...

Yeah, our cold dish of leftover Behe is long overdue.  I suppose it's too much to hope that, before it comes to that, he'll just demonstrate a bit of humility and actually make an effort to learn something about the science involved instead of tossing out more arguments by analogy and raiding creationist sites for 'ideas'.

What I'm saying (hopefully in a humble way) is that living things show "teleonomy" planning, purpose, and know-how.  Just to provide a quick example, the ability of an organism to reproduce itself is one example of teleonomy.  There are other ways that teleonomy is seen in nature.

---

This is the claim that atheists keep making.  But evolution is just another story about creation.  The thing that evolution and creation have in common besides the fact that they are both stories is that they both begin with a supernatural event.  Creation starts with God creating, and evolution begins with raw inorganic matter self-organizing in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.  Strictly speaking, neither story is scientific since there is apparently no way to falsify them.

This is factually incorrect. Evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain the origin of life, but rather, it's diversity.

You might be right.  But "evolutionary theory" might be viewed as something much broader than just Darwinism or NeoDarwinism.  Some people might include abiogenesis as a subset of evolutionary theory.