The main point of his closing argumenets is that the definition od science is not sufficuiently inclusive of supernatural explanations, and, therefore, needs intellectual affermative action to get sciecne to accept fairy tales as scientifically credible theories. He is advocating that sciecne is wrong not to include religion. His statement below proves my point.
As Fuller has explained, it is merely a philosophical commitment to so-called methodological naturalism, adopted as a convention by the bulk of the scientific community, which bars reference to the possibility of supernatural causation, again, at least so far as such causation is currently regarded as supernatural. Even Pennock agrees that philosophers of science, those who have examined these matters in detail, do not agree as to the viability or benefits of this so-called methodological commitment.