Then science should have no problem accepting the idea that Intelligent Design is behind life since it is everywhere observable.<quoted text>
No, scientific theories are based upon observable *evidence*. They are not "speculations".
Scientific paradigms are science's scriptures. Since we really can't know what the universe is, as it seems to exist apart from our finite experience of it, then most scientific theories are really myths and stories that people pretend are real.<quoted text>
They are not tied to any particular set of scriptures.
We don't ascribe what we don't understand to some supernatural being's whims.
That's because science limits itself to explaining the natural world through natural causes exclusively, yet there is nothing stopping scientists from considering non-natural causes other than a deeply ingrained fear that they may appear to be...GASP... illogical. All patterns contain potential representations, therefore, what is seen is not necessarily what is.
If science never claims truth, why believe what it tells you? Rather than flatly state that God does not exist, it would a truer statement to say science has not found God....yet.<quoted text>
Science doesn't claim "truth". It recognizes that new information may overturn established scientific facts and theories.
"Survival of the fittest" is the observation that those living organisms that are most closely fitted to their environment have a greater tendency to survive and pass their genes to the next generation than those organisms that are less fit.