Yes, science 'can' theorize about that which can't be observed .... but, pray tell, when it comes to intelligent design, why is it they REFUSE to theorize? They refuse to discuss reasons why ID is illogical. It is just 'wrong' a priori. How is that rational? Why are kids taught, by scientists, that to theorize about the unobserved is 'crazy'?
(IMHO it is because scientists are quite aware that all moral rulebooks, especially the sexaul one, are suddenly subject to change if ID is involved at all.) I really liked listening to what you had to say. I wish the scientists would listen to it too...
They don't. Where did you get the bizarre idea that they do?
They refuse to discuss reasons why ID is illogical.
ROFL!! Do a Google search for "Dembski" or "Behe", and aside from the creationist websites fawning all over them, you'll find nothing *but* scientists "discussing reasons why ID is illogical" -- or at least why the current ID movement is.
It is just 'wrong' a priori. How is that rational?
It isn't, which is why they don't actually do what you're falsely accusing them of. Nice try.
Why are kids taught, by scientists, that to theorize about the unobserved is 'crazy'?
Lying again, eh? No, kids aren't taught that by scientists.
(IMHO it is because scientists are quite aware that all moral rulebooks, especially the sexaul one, are suddenly subject to change if ID is involved at all.)
You know, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but scientists aren't nearly as motivated as you think they are by thoughts of what their epistimology might do to their sexual options -- but *you* certainly seem to bring up that topic an awful lot. Why the fixation?