[Right Wing Professor]

As a scientist, am I discovering how God rules his universe, or am I determining the behavior of this object which is inanimate and has no reference point outside itself... Both "starting" points are equally valid in science proper.

The first starting point is scientific only if it comes with no consequences (God would have/would not have done X). And if it comes with no consequences, then it's a somewhat pointless assumption, isn't it? It's the ultimate violation of Occam's razor: assuming an entity that makes no difference at all.

[chronic_loser]

actually, assuming the Christian God is rife with the very assumptions that make science possible...., uniformity of matter, and the predictability/consistency of His activity with regard to laws of behavior.