The repetition of your arguments indicate that you failed to understand the fundamentals which I explained. I suggest you read them again. (I'm not belittling your limitations on God's sovereignty over his creation--and the idea that his omnipotence, omniscience, and existence outside of the boundaries of time would extend to creating a universe where he can establish whatever "path" he ordains for it. That's certainly your right and many skeptics, both Christian and not, would applaud you for it. But a more fundamental problem is that you are fostering false dichotomies which ignore the definition of science and the nature of the scientific method.)
Moreover, you've confused the differences between philosophical materialism and methodological materialism. The former is indeed atheistic. The later refers to the methodological naturalism of science and the scientific method, which take no positions either way about God and the supernatural in general. (Most any first semester textbook used by a university History & Philosophy of Science Dept. will take you through the basics of the definitions and fundamental concepts. I don't know where you live but I've gotten the impression that there is more emphasis on these topics at major campuses in the UK than in the U.S. What should be avoided is websites like Conservapedia, fundamentalist bloggers like Al Mohler, and other creation science promoters who basically keep quoting one another as authorities and have little or no scholarly background [or credibility] in the science academy.)
I'm not surprised that you've confused the concepts related to naturalism because this is a very common error in "creation science" books and websites. I know from my own history of academic involvement within the YEC community that some promote it out of ignorance and some promote it because, as they admitted privately, emphasizing that "the sky is falling" and ranting about the alleged atheistic purposes and conspiracies of modern science was the best way to attract donations from frightened followers. Political operatives use similar tactics. Compare the average creation science ministry plea-for-donations letter with that of a political organization. You will find remarkable similarities.
So I recommend you investigate the differences between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and how they impact these topics before heading into more complex topics. Until you get past the distinctions, you are going to keep going in circles and many will be confused by your misuse of terminology.
)
[/FONT] 
