[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.

[VadeRetro]

The argument, alas, isn't over the prime mover of the Big Bang. I don't have a candidate for that, so God is fine. But, again, that's not it.

None of the evidence being swept under the rug, misrepresented, lied about, etc. is about that. God has to do everything, all the time. If the evidence doesn't show that, then it's the fault of immoral, Godless science.

ID is the science that says, "If it isn't a miracle, then THAT's a miracle!"

[VadeRetro]

Note for instance in post 35 we have someone telling God how God is allowed to make the world. For another example, I heard the infamous Kent Hovind on the radio telling the host, "I wouldn't worship a God who used evolution."

[From many - one.]

"...appreciating His art..."

You just nailed in one short phrase what started my initial interest in science.

I wish obdurate creationists could see it.