Kevin,
What do you mean by point 1 above?
I haven't been following all of your discussions with Steve, but "scientific
materialism-naturalism" seems dangerously ambiguous.
It could mean, and in the minds of atheists often does, "metaphysical
naturalism", that nature is all there is -- no supernatural, no God, etc..
Obviously this is mutually exclusive wrt Christianity.
Or it could mean, as I'm sure you're meaning, mere "methodological
naturalism", i.e., for pragmatic reasons (though atheists will deem it more
than pragmatic) natural science employs only natural forces and objects in
its theoretical explanations -- anything else is beyond the reach of science
as a technique, but not necessarily (so far as science is concerned, anyway)
irrational or unreal.
I think Steve is using the term "scientific materialism-naturalism" in the
first sense, while you're using it in the second. (Indeed, I suspect Steve
thinks there ISN'T a second sense that is in any deep way distinct from the
first, which IMHO is one of his most frustrating conceptual mistakes.) This
could result in an even more-than-usually entertaining discussion if the
different uses of the term aren't distinguished.
John