"We should recognize it for what it is: an inescapable reality. Unless you can come up with a way for science to be conducted without any human element."
Scientists require testing and repeatability because they are trying to make their statements as objective as possible. You, on the other hand, embrace subjectivity as being not problematic in the least.
No wonder. They are typically operating with organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. Without intelligent design there would be no testing, let alone repeatability. Intelligent design is an objective reality that governs all of science. Your subjective person will never be able scientifically to explain it away.
How does admitting the existence of subjectivity equate with "embracing" it as "not problematic in the least?" It's obviously been a problem with you, because you cannot objectively understand any connection between intelligent design and organized matter.
####Scientists require testing and repeatability because they are trying to make their statements as objective as possible. You, on the other hand, embrace subjectivity as being not problematic in the least.####
But doesn't every scientist have to be subjective sometimes? Suppose there are two competing theories concerning a given observation.
Aren't Hawking's frequent atheist rants subjective? No one exorcises him from the science community for delivering these rants, even though he often delivers them as part of an otherwise scientific commentary.