Where do we observe "Intelligent Design"?Then science should have no problem accepting the idea that Intelligent Design is behind life since it is everywhere observable.
They are not tied to any particular set of scriptures.
If scientific theories, which are explanations, are not "real", then why are they effective in making predictions?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.
We don't ascribe what we don't understand to some supernatural being's whims.
What would a "non-natural" cause look like? How would it appear different from a natural cause?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...
Science doesn't claim "truth". It recognizes that new information may overturn established scientific facts and theories.
Because (1) it is demonstrably effective, and (2) it can be changed when shown to be incorrect.If science never claims truth, why believe what it tells you?
Unfortunately, neither is true of religion.
Science makes no claim that a god does not exist. So I don't see your point.Rather than flatly state that God does not exist...