"Scientists aren't idiots."

No, but some are quite arrogant. Paul, I assume you aren't trained in music composition, so if I asked you how to resolve the dominant to the tonic, when the dominant involves a flat 7 and flat 9th, and in the course of resolving this transition to the home key, you should incorporate a Neapolitan 6th, I would not consider you to be an idiot.

But when Stephen Hawking says, "science has replaced philosophy," he is speaking like an idiot. If he wrote an essay with that conclusion (using the non-reasoning he has stated previously), any decent Freshman philosophy 101 teacher would flunk him.

Similarly< Vector Stenger, Steven Weinberg, and many other popular scientists (Neil de Grasse Tyson may be worse at this than the infamous Carl Sagan) sound like philosophic idiots, no matter how much they are geniuses with regard to science.

You actually did write something that contradicts everything else you wrote; "WHATEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OBSERVATIONS follows mathematical laws."

That, as far as I understand it, is Michael's simple point. If it is a supra-rational intelligence that is responsible for our observations, then the current method scientists use - which is simply using the ordinary though well trained analytic mind to extract certain quantitative relationships among the sensory data which are perceived in our quite ordinary state of consciousness - than science has nothing to say about the nature of that intelligence.

That means, anyone who says "Science disproves God," understands neither science nor philosophy nor theology."

And it's not entirely out of line to say, "if you want to say something like that for which you have no training, you are not only insufferably arrogant but your'e an idiot."

However you stated it beautifully and humbly, in the quote I just alluded to, so I respect your efforts.