"I think you are missing the point that they only exclude it because of their definition of Science, not totally exclude it..."
===============================================================
extel...
No, I think you missed the point.
Science dismisses the possibility of God and the supernatural by definition, not by evaluation of the merits of the arguments. If a thing cannot be disproved, then it cannot be scientifically valid. God cannot be disproved, therefore He cannot exist in the world of science.
In logic, assume you have a question that has "x" number of possible answers, only one of which is correct. If you automatically exclude one of the possibly valid answers simply because it can neither be proven nor disproved, you are then left with "x-1" possible answers, all of which may be wrong. If the excluded answer turns out to be the correct answer, then all of the other answers are wrong and you have eliminated the only correct answer.
In the case of creation vs evolution, science automatically excludes God and the supernatural as a possible answer to the origen of life, leaving only evolution in its various forms as possible answers -- how is that a good approach to finding the correct answer?? There is also the problem that, using their own logic, how is evolution a possible answer?? It can neither be proved nor disproved. Evolution is just as much a "religion" as Christianity or any other religion and to my mind it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in the Bible. Yet "science" accepts evolution as dogmatic to the exclusion of any other possible answer. Do you not see an agenda here??
When one's belief about the "origen of the species" is wrong, it is quite possible that their belief about the destination of the species is wrong also.
mlsoft
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
