quote:
The problem with science is that what it can't "look at", it can't believe.
Correction. The good thing about science is that it assumes that if something can't be detected, it isn't there. The reason you're even typing on a computer is that the scientific method is a valid construct. Empirical evidential inquiry is the only way humanity has devised to advance beyond the prejudices and wishful thinking we all harbor.
You call this valid subject a "never-to-be-answered-by-science topic" without giving any reason we should consider it an intractable mystery. What if Newton had thought the same thing about the physics of planetary motion? What if Pasteur had decided that disease, fermentation and putrefaction were all holy mysteries that would never be understood in material terms? And yes, what if Darwin had assumed that we would never solve the riddle of patterns of descent among living organisms? The urge to understand more is the foundation of all scientific endeavor.
So your theory about the Garden of Eden doesn't display open-mindedness or a thirst for knowledge. It merely tells us that you're satisfied with explaining things on a religious level, and that's fine. But it's quite a different thing from understanding something. Science certainly does discount 'supernatural' options, but not for the reason you think. The problem with a 'supernatural' theory is not that it can't be proven, it's that it can't conceivably be disproven. The only theories that work are the ones that rely on natural mechanisms, the causes we can observe and understand.
regards,
Esteban "Semi-Aquatic Ape" Hambre
™ Version 4.2