What if "God did it" is the correct answer for some things?

That's an excellent point. It's ridiculous that our tax dollars are awarding grants and funding scientific research which excludes a very plausible and logical explanation - that of a higher intelligence. Why are people so full of pride that they won't even consider the possibility of a higher intelligence in the entire universe. Abiogenesis, still a hypothesis after over 100 years - I think 150, and the great majority of origin scientists have now agreed that it could not have happened by mere chance. So they are searching for an unknown factor such as a law of chemistry which will rescue them and their hypothesis. But what if that factor is God, which I believe it to be. They will ignore it and keep searching for what they want to find.

Why is it ok for top atheist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State to go down the road of Star Trek, claiming that robots will surpass humans in intelligence and will possess consciousness, and now he wants to make sure when they do achieve consciousness, that we change the definition of life to include them, because he suspects they will object if we don't. And forget Asimov's 3 laws of robotics to protect humans from his dreamed up world of computer life -- no, because it is not a bad idea to rid the world of humans in the long term future. I wonder who will choose which life should be done away with! Yes, and he is head of science depts. at Arizona State, the Origins Project, and has advised Congress on science education! And he is nuts. But nobody cares as long as a Higher Intelligence is not considered.

If the answer was "Goddidit" then surely there would be evidence to support that answer.

There isn't.

It makes as much sense to ask "What if the answer is 'Zeusdidit?'"

BTW, a priori means before the fact, usually regarding coming up with a conclusion before testing it. It's not generally encouraged in science but should be taken with a grain of salt in this instance. Firstly, science isn't in the business of dealing with God; its role is to explain the natural world. Secondly, assuming there is a natural explanation rather than God is exactly the same as assuming there is a natural explanation rather than leprechauns or pixies or fairies, an assumption I'm sure you would have no problem with... so why make an exception for God?

How would you know if it was the "correct" answer without evidence?

oops.

By the way, science doesn't "rule out" anything, nor make any a priori assumptions. If you could demonstrate that "god did it" then it would be accepted. Trouble is, nobody can demonstrate any such thing -- they can only claim. And through history, a great many of those claims have been clearly shown false.

oops again.

1 a priori does not mean unproven assumption. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_knowledge

As for the rest of your question(?) I suggest you read up science.

"God did it" is just a lazy and superstitious cop out.

So basically you're just saying that scientists should automatically set " god did it" to default until proven otherwise?

Edit: scientists don't follow their evidence to where they want it to lead, they follow it to where ever it becomes an indisputable fact. That doesn't mean the scientist wanted or knew it would end up that way, it just turned out that way.

The correct answer cannot be considered to be 'God did it' until there is evidence of gods. Once there is, then there is some sense in making a hypothesis about things they might have done.

Science explains the 'how' and God explains the 'why'. Modern science is born from religion, there's no conflict.

That still wouldn't prove that anyone knows what God wants or if he even desires anything from us. Why does an omnipotent being have unachieved goals?

It can't be..since No valid testable evidence shows a god exists!

Thor and his five brother-gods did it.

Just as plausible.

Edit #2: I sure am glad you're not working on the cure for cancer.