Purely naturalistic evolution MUST preclude the existence of a soul,
Purely naturalistic evolution doesn't preclude the existence of a soul any more than the game of baseball precludes the existence of a soul.
Science only studies and concerns itself with things that can be observed. A soul cannot be observed. The conclusion that follows from these two facts is not that science must believe that the soul does not exist. The conclusion that follows is that science takes no position on whether a soul exists.
I ask you to look at the rules of major league baseball. Can you see any where in those rules where it talks about a soul? No? I didn't think so. Therefore, baseball does not believe in a soul.
Does that sound ridiculous? Yes. That is exactly the structure of your argument intended to show that "purely naturalistic evolution precludes the existence of a soul."
For the quoted statement to be true, there must be some part of evolution that makes the positive claim that certain evidence that we have demonstrates that the existence of the soul is impossible. There must be a claim of evidence ruling out the possibility of a soul. The mere fact that science does not study the soul is a far cry from the idea that science says it doesn't exist.
What you are doing is creating your own version of what you think someone who believes in naturalistic evolution must believe, based on your own biases. If you truly want to create a chart that accurately reflects what the various camps claim, you pretty much have to listen to what they actually say, and not foist your own interpretations on them
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2