Doesn't seem to me to be common knowledge at all, that the available data supports naturalism. Your article doesn't make any claim about naturalism either.Do you have a clear grasp of what naturalism says? Can you lay out the inference that goes from scientific data to naturalism?
Having just joined this forum, I am a bit late with these comments but here goes. One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines. Carroll seems to accept unquestioningly that heat can produce humans and matter in motion can produce machinery. This has never been demonstrated or observed. The blind workings of nature are nearly sterile when it comes to producing useful complexity regardless of how open a system might be. In contrast, virtually all observable instances of useful creativity have been the result of intelligent (human) effort. Like Dawkins, Carroll is an example of ingenuity making nonsense seem plausible.