Nah babe. Science is following the evidence wherever it may lead. It's about trying to discover the truth. What you describe as real science is having an agenda and being dogmatic. You cannot ignore evidence and expect to be taken seriously. You cannot supplant data and observation with tales of watches and religious stories and call it science. That is dogmatic.
The Bible was written by mere mortals and in some ways does reflect some of the beliefs and attitudes of the people of those times, but you insist on being blind to the things in the Bible that defy your simple prejudices, just like you refuse to understand what I actually said and insist on arguing with your own straw man notions. Your logic fails.
If you start with a belief in no God and no principle of action but atoms and molecules governed by simple forces/energies/fields like electricity, magnitism, gravity and such, believing that this is enough to explain everything in the universe, you are a priest in your own right, holding forth a dogma that admits of no challenge from anything else.
You are the exact same thing in this as a priest who has never questioned his religious definitions and principles, and will admit of no possible randomness in creation. I don't deny that a lot of different processes are happening, including unplanned or random events, I say that living things exert a sort of life force on the fabric of their existence, and do some things that can't be explained by accidents of nature. Even amoeba do this in some ways.
The scientists you use as a crutch of denial routinely do just what I am claiming all life does at some level of organization, in effect "playing god" as they use specific knowledge to exert intentioned effects on living things. Some folks wouldn't think an amoeba has "intelligence" and would attribute responses to chemicals binding on cellular membranes and such, and would presume that such simple cells survive changes in their environment on a merely statistical distribution of properties, ignoring some bizarre and seldom-considered "actions" that can be compared to "communication" with other cells, photo-electric phenomena that at first glance would not have any purpose at all.
I'm not getting these kinds of ideas out of the Bible, but from a soviet scientist of the past generation, who developed a godless sort of "life force" idea, imputing to living things the power to create conditions favorable to life and the power to create new capacities for survival. . . .
I simply combine his scientific observations with the notion that of course, if there is a being, or class of beings "like humans" that has existed for any length of time, of course we should expect to see the effects of design and purposed changes all through the history of life.
We have the capacity to tilt the table of statistics and promote things we care to develop in living things. Why would you presume we are the first to ever do so? And such power is in essence the kernel concept of "God" or "Creator".
Your religion is to deny the possible existence of someone like yourself, who has existed before you. I am simply trying to point out how absurd your dogma is.
