Hi Gerold,
You did not read what I said very carefully, and allowed your prejudices to color your interpretation of what I said. What I said was that God or some concept of deity was needed as a Final Cause in the Aristotelian meaning of that. If you don't do that, then all you are doing is atheistic materialistic philosophy and the tools of modern science can only be applied in this realm of thought, which leaves a large gap in the ability of human beings to comprehend and understand nature, because the Final Cause discussion is excluded.
All that science can achieve within this materialistic realm is develop models of how nature might work at the most simple level of material interactions. The social sciences might be able to develop rules or more precisely observations of behavior of aims and intentions, but such models would only have contingent validity, and be limited in terms of the scope of their applicability.
Looked at from a methodology perspective, the exclusion of God or deity from science is an arbitrary demarcation rule that excludes certain assumptions from consideration in a purely arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Your attempt to justify your arbitrary and discriminatory rule of exclusion by appeal to false mythology and incorrect history is not sufficient to overcome the fact that you are supporting a demarcation rule that is discriminatory against religious thought and opinion and so has a strong tinge of political bias as well as closed minded illiberal thought.
Your arguments supporting the exclusion of religious thought from the scientific conversation are not convincing, since they can only lead to the exclusion of an important viewpoint from the discussion, rather than broaden it to a more mature viewpoint of nature. As it stands now, the demarcation rule that you support, can only lead to the suppression of the religious viewpoint and not towards a better appreciation of natural philosophy.
I am not advocating that religion be injected into science, I merely said that God should be considered as a Final Cause in the scientific discussion. The alternative of mindless mathematical laws governing nature is not really an acceptable alternative to that, as is evident from reading the essays submitted in the contest so far.
