It is not a matter of directly observing, but indirect observation and inference, just like most of science. Most of science, in all its details, may be undertaken with the assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and still sustains them. As such, most of science is inclined to expect an orderly universe to investigate, because an intelligent designer would normally be considered to produce an intelligible object. Science must deal with intelligible data.
But what can be said for the givens with which you believe science ought to operate? If intelligent design is not the given with which you do science, then what is? Unintelligent non-design? Zelda's wrath? Or do you pretend you have no "givens?"
You're right it has been largely a one-sided conversation. You've left the lion's share of my questions unanswered. That's okay. I've grown used to it.
If science leads to theological implications, why must science discard a theological answer? How does it logically follow? Or is it just because you think the constitution to forbid such ideas? As I've said, and continue to maintain, you are no champion of free inquiry, (let alone a free repbulic) but a misguided proponent of an ideology. Take heart. You're not alone. You've got Laurence Tribe on your side. Stalin. Marx. Just to name a few.
If all else fails you've always got those voices in your head to lead you into all truth. :)