[+/-] The absence of god in the universe

Keith Cantrell has written a concise explanation of how genuine scientists differ from the creationists/ID folk:

[T]he most noble aspect of scientific inquiry is that it is self-correcting. In fact, in science skepticism is a virtue. In religion it's a vice. In other words science welcomes opposition, but religion avoids it. Religious institutions condemn those who disagree but science thrives on open debate.

This illustrates the major difference between scientific evolution and fundamentalist creationism. Creationists don't care about facts. They only want to convince the world that God exists, that the Bible is infallible and that they are right.

I've believed for a long time that the main philosophical difference between naturalists and supernaturalists is the importance of evidence.

Imagine that it were possible to prove beyond all doubt that a god really did exist. Scientists, being concerned with empirical evidence, would eventually accept it. Now imagine the reverse: if we proved beyond all doubt that a god did NOT exist, do you think supernaturalists would accept it? Of course not. Evidence (i.e. facts) are simply not as important as belief. This is why "intelligent [sic] design" rings so hollow: it isn't concerned with evidence.