I agree. Without a solid foundation, the harder concepts are far more difficult to grasp. For example; a detailed description of FFTs and their use in narrowband SETI
The collection, interpretation and practical application of data are at the foundation of science. As soon as one is born with reason and senses he/she has a solid foundation for the collection and interpretation of data simply by virtue of sensory perception. So, in a sense, everyone is a scientist.
Although perhaps unable to express itself, a human gains an awareness that such a thing as "personhood" exists (I would dare predict) at a much earlier age than they gain an awareness of such concepts as "nothingness," "randomness", or "chance." Even without direct awareness (instincts), the sensory perception of an infant is engaged in an incredible amount of data gathering, organization, and yes, even assumptions based on experience.
Why do I bring all this up? To show that it is not unreasonable to assume that intelligence and design permeate the universe, and that personhood truly exists. Anything that exists is wide open for scientific inquiry, even those things we do not understand. Dogmatic evolutionists err when they stifle open discussion of any part of the universe. They demonstrate less an interest in science than in their vested dogmatism and egos.
Without a solid foundation, ANY concept is difficult to grasp.
Hey; this is a family forum -- no talking dirty allowed!