lifegazer said:
Rubbish. The concept of 'acausality' is evidence that science believes in the reality of "things", since all sense-of-things do have a cause, by default.
Also, the insistence on looking "out there" for causal-agents of perceived-effects is further evidence of a bias towards the "out there".
No philosophical bias of science CAUSES the results of observation. The reason that Quantum theory exists and is correct is because, when many physicists arrogantly believed that all physical phenomena had been discovered and appropriately modeled at the end of the nineteenth century, they found some anomalies that turned out to be major drawbacks to their models (based on classical theories). One of these was the anomaly of black-body radiation (the emission spectra of heated objects at different temperatures). It just wouldn't fit into any classical mathematical model, or more precisely, 'continuous emission' model. Max Planck, although retrofitting the math into the collected data, found that if one were to assume discontinuity (or discreetly sized emissions), the data could be modeled accurately. Thus was the start of Quantum physics.
By this time in physics history, experimenters were very apt at experimenting, collecting data, and publishing papers for scrutiny, so it was not poor controls or setup or subjective bias. The numbers, constantly and repetitiously, could not be reconciled within the scope of their current models. New models were born that reconciled these. That they incurred acausality was no fault of the observers, only of the observations. Which has much to say about Quantum theory - at those levels, the equipment impose such a large imbalance into the observation, that, de facto, nothing can be done to reconcile, for instance, Heisenberg's uncertainty (e.g.: knowing velocity at the cost of position and vice versa).
Also, that all theories should have observational evidence to back them up is further evidence of this bias, since it is obvious that we cannot observe 'God'. Hence, science blatantly rejects the notion of God by insisting on observational proof for all theories.
Now we get to the heart of your entire enterprise.
So, let's see. You need to remove theories of those nasty, nuisance-ridden supporting observational evidence and experimental repeatability to introduce God into science (or, more accurately, remove science altogether). This has been my suspicion all along (and I've voiced it at least once already).
Science does no such thing. Science has nothing to say about God. Scientists may have things to say, but science is the study of natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena, and not phenomena that cannot be studied or inferred. As strong as String 'theory' is held by scientists, I have held judgement (still referring to it as 'hypothesis') because there have been no confirmational experiments using it yet.
I'm so sorry that we must impose reality on you by requesting evidence for hypotheses. Let me think..... hmmmm.... before this imposition, there was no science, only speculation, misguided philosophical reasoning, and religion.
So, what would you replace observational evidence with? Your infallible word?
Kuroyume
P.S.: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
This is a strawman, lifegazer. 
