"˜The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator'. Louis Pasteur from Louis Pasteur"”Founder of Modern Medicine.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind." Max Planck during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech

It should also be noted that nature's origins requires the supernatural. Natural processes only exist in nature.

But you do have a point. Science is self-correcting and usually eliminates the BS. So let us allow ID an honest and open discussion and let the evidence lead the way.

IDists say if the evidence leads us to the metaphysical, then so be it. However it is obvious that it has to…

As an example, does anybody here believe in Thor any more? Before you answer, remember that we see "evidence" of his existence every time we see lightning or hear thunder. I'll bet you don't and not because you're aThorists, but because we have better theories, supported with ample naturalistic evidence, of what causes thunder and lightning today.

How about Persephone? We see "evidence" of her existence every time summer changes into winter and back. Of course not, we have better evidence and theories of what causes the seasons today.

How about Yahwah? We see "evidence" of his existence every time we see … Hmmm. Can't think of a thing that Yahwah is supposed to do that isn't explained better by a naturalistic theory. Can you name anything that we can see that Yahwah is supposed to do for which we don't have a better naturalistic explanation?

Supernatural beings are going the way of Phlogestin and Caloric. Not disproven, just replaced by better theories. I like to think of it as, "Ten thousand down, one to go."

Roy W., a scientist is allowed to have an opinion on the existence or non-existence of supernatural being(s). These views are, "by their very nature, claims of religioius faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science." You can, however, use science to get an estimate of how likely any supernatural being might be and especially, if there's a simpler explanation right here on earth.

The problem is not with science scrutinizing nature for evidence of intelligence at work. The problem for ID is that we've been doing just that for over 10,000 years and the results to date are zip. No credible evidence of non-human intelligence has been found and gobs of evidence for naturalistic causes for the phenomena formerly attributed to gods has turned up instead.

Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science.

This is part of the statement of the 120 that Patterson is apparently playing a major role in pushing for. If Patterson believes, as he is reported as saying, that science is completely atheistic then he's violating the above statement is he not? And if he can say that science can be properly eliminative of God then it follows that IDists can say that science can scrutinize nature for evidence of intelligence at work does it not? They may not in the end find it, but they aren't a priori, that is methodologically, forbidden to look.

That is the double standard at issue here, and emphatically not whether Patterson gets to say mean things about God. He who says A got's to say B.

The "double standard" seems to be that if a scientist says nice things about God, he wins a Templeton Prize and a million dollars plus. When a scientist says something nice about atheism, he's a villain.

The Iowa State Daily article reports Patterson as saying science is "completely atheistic." If that's an accurate quote, then Patterson doesn't believe merely that science is methodologically naturalistic, but naturalistic by definition. That being the case MG's point stands.