[VadeRetro]

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Exactly the problem with creation/ID. It's the science of punting on first down. "I can't understand it. I won't understand it. You can't make me! Goddidit. I won't learn any more about cause and effect!"

[flevit]

quite contrary, we are the ones talking about the FIRST cause,

[LiberationIT]

One definition of faith is a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." One could say, allow me some latitude here, science is "belief that rests on logical proof and material evidence." (I suspect that belief word will start a conversation, but I’m going for contrast.)

Creationists are people of faith trying to win the argument on scientific grounds. It doesn't work because it's still faith masquerading as science; and so the debate goes on.

Not being a person of faith, I find I can’t hold a meaningful discussion with the faithful. It’s like trying to win an argument over which recipe is tastiest or which painting is the best. I’m sure they feel the much the same about me.

[Atheist_Canadian_Conservative]

I agree with what you are saying, but there might be a better way to look at it.

Simply saying 'Goddidit' is pretty lazy; but you can say 'Goddidit' and then ask, "how did God do it?"

For matters such as the origin of the universe (unknowable - we can keep pushing our understanding of how it changed from an initial state back to fractions of nanoseconds, but *never* be able to describe time=0). A "reason" or "purpose" could never be divined by science either. There is room for God and for faith (alas, a description of our observations does not require God).

Not being sensitive to these things is counter-productive. I would say that the majority of scientific contributions have been made by the faithful (for obvious raw number reasons), who probably see their work, in some way, as learning little bits about how God "goes about His work". Or appreciating His art.

[UltraKonservativen]

...I can't understand it. I won't understand it. You can't make me! Goddidit. I won't learn any more about cause and effect!"...

Pretty quick dismissal of all the "Scientific minds" who through the centuries have tried to explain the misteries of God's creation and have contributed so much knowledge used to support the theory of "evolution".
To conclude that because one believes in God, curiosity and the pursuit of scientific knowledge stops automatically is not supported by history or reality...not even in Kansas.