Atheist Evangelist is an entertaining term, but no I don't think subscribing to one belief over another (as far as gods are concerned) makes one unfit to think logically in most cases.
All I'm saying is if you're researching plants, and your plants suddenly become telepathic and are telling you the future, you're probably no longer able to distinguish fact from fiction in regards to plants.
In the case of Tyson, I don't know. Is he being whispered the future by his astrological calculations/observations? Then yeah, I'd say he's in the same paranormal boat.
Once you start subscribing magic to your science, you're probably not "doing" science.
Peter Watt's Echopraxia makes a nice conversation of this. His point something along the lines of: as long as your prediction are right it doesn't really matter if you call it God or call it Science, as they functionally amount to the same thing. Its just a matter of calling a spade a spade. If you're worshiping your plants and they whisper secrets of the universe, and those whispers are right, I'm not saying its invalid, just that that doesn't sound like the definition most people use for science.
In the end though, its the outcome that matters, not what one calls it.
It seems to me if someone is doing the research openly and honestly so we can evaluate & replicate their findings that person hasn't crossed any lines? (Exceptions might be made for people harming the public good, like Dawkin's downplaying child molestation...)
So I guess, yes, you're probably right. Seems weird to me, but in the end that's a straw man. Someone that appears strange to me doesn't make them wrong. If the experiments get replicable results, who cares.