The question is not do you need to account for them in order to make use of their existence. The question is can you account for them?
Discussion
I can observe and measure them. But if what you're looking for is something along the lines of "purpose" or reason why they are what they are, then there are 2 answers: "I don't know", and "no explanation / random chance". I'm ok with that.
That's my point. Christian theism can account for these things and other worldviews cannot. Meanwhile, the scientific endeavor must assume the conclusions in order to even proceed.
Then I think you're misunderstanding how science works. There is no assumption of conclusions. Good scientific endeavors remove bias and presuppositions by using "double blind" testing methods.
On the other hand, what your christian theism accounts for it does so by just making things up. Your religion is based on the writings of bronze age goat herders, it **must** therefore be assumed to be flawed. There's no way those people back then knew more about the world/universe than we do now.
Yes, you can account for more things. But your knowledgebase is much more likely to be flawed, incorrect, and filled with falsehoods. I for one, would rather just say "I don't know" about something than to try and force in an explanation for which there is no evidence.
Do you assume there is no God when you read Scripture or test possible hypotheses?
Do you include the claims of Christian theism as possible explanations of phenomena?
In one note, you both claimed lack of bias, and argued for bias against Christian theism. You cannot have it both ways.
> Do you assume there is no God when you read Scripture or test possible hypotheses?
Anytime I've been in a position too test possible hypotheses, I've never assumed there isn't a God and I've never assumed there is either. If any god wanted to reveal himself he would know exactly how to do so to make me believe, and yet here I stand, an atheist.
> Do you include the claims of Christian theism as possible explanations of phenomena?
No. While not excluded completely, once eliminated, there's little reason to continue entertaining ideas that do not meet the standards of evidence.
> In one note, you both claimed lack of bias, and argued for bias against Christian theism. You cannot have it both ways.
I don't think so, perhaps you're misunderstanding what I wrote.