[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I accept and can understand the enjoyment of discovery. It’s the proverbial pot at the end of the rainbow. And every time that discovery is made I’ll congratulate whoever found it. However, I’ve yet to see the scientist who has the proof of whatever, that will cause me to change my belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally don't know any reputable scientists who would try. The best I can say about my own beliefs is that the God Hypothesis does not appear to be necessary to explain any observable phenomena.

[ QUOTE ]
I’ve known scientists and doctors who believe in God. They’ve made cases for the co-existence of the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution. Personally, I agree with them and don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know plenty of doctors, scientists, economists, etc. who believe in God and see no conflict between some idea of a Created Universe and the scientific theory of evolution. I have no problem with them, and no beef with their ideas or beliefs.

What I dislike is the idea that because something inexplicable or poorly understood is discovered, the devout get a free pass for fingerpointing at science and scoffing, "See? You don't know everything. There are things we can't understand, aren't meant to understand, etc. Therefore God did it." This puts science in the uncomfortable position of appearing to attack religion, because as scientists we take away from religion that which it held special prominence over, the unknown, the inexplicable, the poorly understood.

And what I really dislike is the idea that the God Hypothesis can be yanked out of the closet and used as a panacea to fix the gaps in science. A God of the Gaps should be downright embarassing to the faithful, yet it seems to be gaining strength due to the sophistry of pseudo scientists and charlatans like Behe and Dembski, Gish and Gitt.