I see your point here, I just don't agree with it. People on either side of any issue will use whatever information is at their disposal to prove what they want to prove--an excellent point that BSAMS made earlier. The refusal you speak of is near universal, and I consider myself diligent (probably not here though) when it comes to accepting theories, scientific or otherwise. So whether scientists are afraid of God or not could easily be reserved, and does nothing to advance the conversation.

What I haven't claimed--and wouldn't claim--is that my position is superior; I'm comfortable with not having all of the answers after having religion attempt to fill the gap of explaining things. I have conceded a number of points, and those concessions have resulted in predictable responses. Your assertion that logic dictates the impossibility of order coming from chaos rings a bit hollow against the backdrop of the myriad of scientific discoveries about the universe that have helped shape the course of mankind over thousands of years. Likewise, the idea (not yours) that we are discovering different facets of God as we make discoveries reads more to me like a copout than a synthesis between religion and science.

So the 800-pound gorilla could be the spectre of science encroaching upon the claims of religion, just a easily as it could be the shadow of God.