It's repeatable? Who'd have thought. And exactly how does that give it a special status, again? It makes it useful for predicting certain things, certainly. The mere fact that it is useful, however, is hardly sufficient condition for calling it true.
Science generates models, that's all it does. Fancy ways of predicting a limited range of phenomena. That does not grant you some deeper insight into the structure of reality. It's a set of tools, nothing more. If you do not believe in God, that is your prerogative, though atheism strikes me as no less flawed than theism. If you want to dogmatically cling to the tenets of science and those of science alone, that too is your prerogative, though I do not believe it is actually possible to do so in quite the way you imagine. You might do well to realise, however, that there is more to this world than science can reveal. It takes only a moment's reflection to realise this.
The point I am making, is that your precious science is not the stable foundation you think it is. It is strung together from assumptions in quite the same way any other belief system is. You quite predictably bring up the microscope. Yes, I have used them, quite frequently in fact. I am hardly ignorant of biology in general or microbiology in particular. That, however, is not relevant. What the scientific mode of thinking precludes you from seeing is the rather obvious fact that all these claims about cells are only as reliable as what is used to support them. As any philosopher could have told you.
In citing observations made with the microscope as supporting those claims, you implicitly assert the veracity of the observations microscopes can offer. And therein lies the problem. You say you want evidence to support claims, but you fail to reflect on what it is, precisely, what you're asking. Even when I explicitly frame the question, you seem unable to look below the surface. The claim that a certain observation is evidence for a given claim is itself a claim needing further support. Following a strictly scientific line of reasoning, that in turn would require evidence, leading to an infinite regress. Certainly, one can and often will stop at some point and say that some claim is evident, that it needs no further evidence to support it. And for practical purposes, this is fine. But this does not constitute accepting a claim on the weight of evidence, it is accepting a claim because to you, it just appears evident. You accept it simply because it is utterly convincing, because the alternatives are too implausible. You accept it not because the evidence merits it, since there is no further evidence. You just accept it. As, for example, one might accept a fundamental religious tenet. Your treasured repeatability does not save you from that. It is an instance of the same principle, in fact. There are no incontrovertible foundations, which means that your dogmatic faith in the superiority of the scientific method, and more generally in empirical observation, is entirely misguided. It is one possible approach among many. Exactly what makes yours better?
