I don't know enough about Vervaeke's ontology to say. (Taoism can be reductive, I think.) But yes, I'm a "nonreductivist" in that I think nature creates levels of being, the emergent properties of which are best explained by autonomous levels of inquiry (the special sciences and humanities, etc). This is how lots of philosophers make room in naturalism for humanism.

The problem is that Prudence doesn't seem to think there's any such nonreductive naturalism. She thinks naturalists go from a positivist fixation on scientific methods to an eliminativist metaphysics that must deny the existence of consciousness or morality. And I take that to be a flagrant strawman of the natural basis for criticizing theism.