Even if science is objective, scientists aren’t. Oh, there’s plenty about removing one’s bias from their work, but to no avail. It is impossible to shut down one’s own bias completely. At best, we can remove most of the assumptions from our bias and render the remaining assumptions malleable.
Due to the overwhelming number of naturalists drawn to the sciences, the assumption that there is nothing outside of the realm of the observable, repeatable, and quantifiable. Thus has led to the fallacy of scientists claiming to have disproven the existence of many things, most notably things from religions. Absence of evidence is not in and of itself proof. Science can only attempt disproof of one thing by proving that something else exists which is logically incapable of coexistence with the first item. A cannot be true if B, B=true, therefore A=false. Yet too many scientists abandon science in its own name to use the absence of evidence as proof. The argument of science vs. religion (or science vs anything else) is but a false division. The real war is religion vs naturalism.
There is a logic trap used in debating religion. If we understand how something happened, then God didn’t do it. If we don’t, it didn’t happen. The naturalist does not allow for the possibility of God in these arguments. Believers do not dispute the normal order of things, we simply believe that a supernatural stimulus was applied to cause many of the spectacular events in which we believe.
The naturalist does not believe in the supernatural because they have not personally observed it, nor has it been repeated, and so it cannot be quantified. Yet, the scientific method can only analyze the observable, repeatable, and quantifiable. Since the supernatural, by definition, cannot be repeated, is rarely observed, and cannot be quantified, science can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural except by proving those items which cannot coexist with the supernatural item in question.
Since the naturalist and believer both agree on the present natural laws, to believe in a religion as literal does not hamper our ability to move forward scientifically nor technologically. Rather, our faith simply tells the world how we plan to use what we find.
Science is no more capable of forming morality than a paper map can dig through the rock covering the treasure marked upon itself. Science gives only raw data. Science can tell us how sperm and egg cells divide, the stages that they will take, and even how to interrupt the process. But science alone cannot tell us if we should. Among other things, religion includes a core set of philosophies. Philosophies then inform morality. Naturalists are capable of morality, but only by adopting secular philosophy or co-opting the philosophy of a religion that they do not practice.
Tell me in the comments, what other assumptions do scientists make?