[Tribune7]

Science is a systematic investigation of nature.

Right. And, almost by definition, you will be unable to prove the source of that nature through nature -- I almost feel like invoking Godel here. Further, when investigating it is critical that one keeps in mind the difference between investigating and solving.

If you have evidence for the existence of God, you're either nuts or up for a Nobel.

And you are looking for material evidence, which sort of makes my point. The true nature of the universe including the answer to the critical question as to what is our purpose may not be able to be revealed via material evidence. In fact, I think it is impossible for material investigation to address this.

And the existence of God must be addressed whether one has material evidence for it or not.

[VadeRetro]

Science doesn't have the ultimate answers and maybe never will, but it converges upon an increasingly accurate description of nature. It has done so particularly rapidly over the last two centuries, the very period of progress Witch Doctor Luddites tend to reject as some kind of bizarre wrong turn.

And the existence of God must be addressed whether one has material evidence for it or not.

Not in science class.