My own 2 cents worth:
Firstly, others have covered it, but:
- The Scientific Method does not begin with a hypothesis. It begins with observation. The hypothesis is part of step 2.
- A hypothesis is a possible explanation of relevant observations. It is marked "hypothesis" to indicate there is no "faith" in it being correct.
Secondly, the Richard Lewontin quote seems fine to me, although I suspect the OP seems to misunderstand the use of the word "materialism" in the quote.
Thirdly, I studied Physics a long time ago, and I was not a great student, but I do recall a page list setting out names of physicists and their various measurements of the speed of light, over time. I recall that each physicist was a bit more accurate, but mostly within the margin of error of the previous physicist. Michaelson was the first to derive an accurate measurement of the speed of light. Wikipedia states Michaelson measured it at 299,853 +/- 60 km/s, with his spinning octagonal mirror, in 1883. The current figure is 299,792.458 km/s, just within the very tight margin of error.
What this means is there has been no measurable decrease in the speed of light since it was first accurately measured. In other words, the basic premise of the OP's article is FUNDAMENTALLY FALSE.
But if the OP still thinks he has a point, I have thought of a very simple way to prove (or disprove) it once and for all. Prior to Michaelson, in 1676, an astronomer named Ole Römer was able to do a very rough calculation of the speed of light by observing variations in the speed of the orbit of Io (a moon) around Jupiter, whilst Earth's orbit was sending Earth in Jupiter's direction, and again 6 months later when Earth was heading away from Jupiter.
The OP could buy a basic telescope, pen, paper, and stopwatch, and repeat Römer's experiment. If light is now slower than it was in 1676, then Io's apparent change in speed will be more pronounced. (Perhaps the data can then be inserted into Einstein's Field Equations, to see what effect that might have on the calculated age of the Universe.)
I urge Perry to carry out this cheap and simple experiment. If he is able to demonstrate a variation, he would almost certainly win a Nobel Prize. If not, it would mean that this entire article is just, for want of a more polite word, crap.