No, but you want us (the 'Scientist') to do exactly this - "appeal" to the "anonymous authority" of (unknown, unproven) author(s) of the Bible.

Pardon my butting into this very interesting debate. In anticipation of Paul's query, let me qualify in my introduction itself that I'm not even Christian - on the subject of God, I hold the same position as Milo.

Without intending to hijack this thread, but just to clarify by comparison, not all populaces were 'primitive' in their thinking 2 or 3 millenia ago. Further to the east, in India, the Vedic 'religion' had already 'discovered' a lot of the facts which are considered 'modern common sense' as referred to earlier in this discussion. I am deliberately not quoting any here to confirm my non-intention of hijacking this thread but if participants of this discussion wish, then I can.

Remember, appealing to authority is only fallacious if the party to which one appeals is not in fact an authority on the subject.

I find this to be an illogical statement and a contradiction of terms.
You are trying to give a new definition of science.
You are right in saying that the popular belief is that science is committal.
That’s because the accepted definition of science is that it is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
Science is indeed dedicated to proving facts as truths.

"a scientist will tend to shift toward the acceptance end but they will never completely accept it."

Your comment is to broad and not based on actual evidence. If a theory is not proven then yes, a scientist may shift towards acceptance, but once a theory is proven as fact it is accepted scientifically.

Grab any college level science text book and look inside. It is filled with accepted facts taught as science.

To place yourself outside of popular belief does not in fact make your statement a truth.

I find this to be an illogical statement and a contradiction of terms.
You are trying to give a new definition of science.
You are right in saying that the popular belief is that science is committal.
That’s because the accepted definition of science is that it is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
Science is indeed dedicated to proving facts as truths.

"a scientist will tend to shift toward the acceptance end but they will never completely accept it."

Your comment is to broad and not based on actual evidence. If a theory is not proven then yes, a scientist may shift towards acceptance, but once a theory is proven as fact it is accepted scientifically.

Grab any college level science text book and look inside. It is filled with accepted facts taught as science.

To place yourself outside of poplar belief does not in fact make your statement a truth.

Contrary to popular belief, science is noncommittal. While the average person may find value in concepts such as truth or fact, science does not. Science deals only with possibility. An idea may be right and it may be wrong. Only two things are rejected: contradiction (inherent falsehood) and tautology (inherent truth).

This is entirely consistent with your acceptance/rejection scale but with the added restriction that the extremes of totality are limits (i.e. unattainable). As evidence in support of an idea becomes available, a scientist will tend to shift toward the acceptance end but they will never completely accept it. Likewise, as evidence in refutation of an idea becomes available, a scientist will tend to shift toward the rejection end but they will never completely reject it. In certain cases, a scientist will feel there is no credible evidence either way and will hold in the neutral position at the middle of the scale.

To put this all back into the context of Dmitry's article, my position is exactly as I said in my original comment. I reject the tautology that God did what he did for no reason other than because he is God.