Even if (though?) I agree with the point you are making, Amos, there is still a certain arrogance of dismissal that science should not be making to questions that it claims to be answering empirically but is not.

Questions are not invalid just because:

1. They call into question a seemingly workable hypothesis

2. They are asked without an answer in mind (I mean, isn't that truer to "science" than to accept that only the right people have the right to ask the questions -- and that they must be asked with a pre-concieved acceptable answer?)

3. They cannot be answered. It is possible to ask a question that one does not know the answer to, but that still shows a fallacy in a currently held view. If you maintained that the reason the lights came on when you flipped a switch was because you prayed that they would come on, I would not be wrong in my questioning you -- even if I could not, properly, or in completeness, explain the principles of electricity. But that kind of dismissal of questioning is what the scientific community's response has, to date, been of "questions" such as the recently published papers on "Irreducible Complexity" -- a paper that concludes more about the accepted standards of current science than it concludes alternative possibility(s).