Scientific Explanation?

atheists trying to establish science as the the only source of truth and access to reality. They go far as to claim that everything outside of science is irrelevant and even absurd. It's this same philosophy that has totally infiltrated our school systems.

While the above statement is a huge generalization as if atheists IS one person and only one voice, let me just assume that some atheists may be pushing the argument too far. Science, as a method of investigation, is order of magnitude more valid and relevant in terms of understanding truth. While the quote above complains 'this same philosophy that has totally infiltrated our school systems', the same can be said of the creationists' agenda of posing intelligent design as a science. This is simple politics of interested parties flighting for attention.

The post continues to give an example:

For example, there is a pot of water on the stove. If someone to pose a question "Why is this water boiling?"

The scientific answer would go something like this: The water is boiling because the temperature is excess of a hundred degrees, when that happens it has an effect on the molecules, and those molecules begin to react in a certain way and that's why the water is boiling. And that is a perfectly good scientific explanation.

But here is another explanation as to why the water is boiling, Because Dan wants to have a cup of tea. That is an explanation on a different level then a scientific explanation and yet it is completely valid and moreover, the scientific explanation itself, would be incomprehensible if you didn't put into the context as to why the pot got on the stove in the first place, because Dan is trying to make himself some tea. Thats why the set of events have been set into motion that cannot be described scientifically. [my emphasis]

The problem with this example is that Dan failed to realised the overloaded meaning of the word "why". In English, "why" seeks explanation of the phenomena, ie what makes water boil. At the same time, "why" also seeks the causality of who boils the water. Science does not, and has never, attempt to explain the causality of human initiated events.

Dan dismissed science from then onwards. However, it is important to note that in understanding human interactions, it is also important to be "evidence-based'. Someone is murdered. Can we just accuse a passerby of murdering? We need evidence to convict the murderer, right?

Faith, is not evidence-based. Claiming any 'truth' based on a set of old fictions is more absurd!