Hi level Joe -
You're ascribing to science some things that aren't there.
"Once you have proof of something... its over, it’s done, no need to study any further. Right?" Wrong. No scientist thinks this way. There's always new information and insight to be gained. Newton came up with his laws of motion hundreds of years ago. Physicists are still examining their implications.
You're right when you say "don’t put too much faith in what you can see, touch or feel". Humans are flawed creatures, full of bias and faulty perception. But I do put my faith in what others have seen, touched and felt, and then said 'here, you try it.' And sure enough, when I try it (and when anyone else anywhere tries it), we get the same result. That's the scientific method.
Ethanol comes out at around 78 Celsius. Everyone who runs a still finds this to be true. If I have the opinion that it comes out at 90, does that call into doubt every one else's observation? Or just make me wrong? There are such things as facts, that aren't just a matter of opinion. Otherwise we could never watch TV, use a computer, drive a car, or do a million other things that we take for granted.
"The scientific method is limited to those phenomena which can be observed or measured." Absolutely true. No scientist would ever claim otherwise. But "what existed prior to the Big Bang and the known universe is outside of the realm of science to investigate", I disagree with. Cosmologists investigate this question every day. Nobody's close to an answer, of course. It may turn out that science never discovers this. It may turn out that our minds are too limited to understand it. But what happens outside the earth's atmosphere was once outside the realm of science to investigate, too.
We can also turn the question back at the asker: How and when did God come into existence? What was there before he existed?
Creationists often criticize science for claiming certainty, which it never does. True, scientists are people, and can fall into the traps of ego, turf wars, or politics. (Even Einstein, late in life, insisted on questionable things because he couldn't let himself be wrong). Since science is a human endeavor, it will never be done perfectly, or achieve the ideal of objectivity that it sets for itself.
But for this reason, part of the scientific method is to require many scientists to review, replicate, and criticize the findings of others. Eventually the facts win out (we hope). The system of peer review, and even the entrenched resistance of stubborn old farts, acts as a brake against the acceptance of any wacky idea that comes down the pike. A new theory has to be really, really, really proven before it's accepted. This is a good thing. Plate tectonics is a good example of this. It was denounced as an absurd fringe theory with no evidence to back it up, when first proposed.
But any scientist worth his salt will freely tell you what is known, what is not known, which facts fit the theory and which ones contradict it, how much confidence (or lack thereof) there is in the current theory, and even what is outside of science's realm to answer.
Questions of the "why" of anything fall into the last category. Ask any scientist. Science is a tool. You don't use a hammer to drive a screw (OK, sometimes I
do but only if I'm really frustrated). Criticizing science because it can't answer "why" is like saying my dishwasher is completely useless because it can't play MP3's.
And expecting science to answer "why" is assuming facts not in evidence, as they say in court - that is, that there is a "why" to begin with. Regardless, scientists know that this is a question they can't answer, so they don't spend their time (and our tax dollars!) trying to.
On the other hand, the most fascinating thing I ever heard a physicist say was "Why is there anything
? Why does the universe exist in the first place? Why is there not just nothing everywhere?" Of course, someone of faith will have an answer for this. But if you want true awe and mystery, listen to a cosmologist talk about the universe sometime. In general, I think that if those who level these kinds of charges at science ever actually listened to an hour-long interview with a scientist, they'd be very surprised.
Lastly, I'm always struck by one thing in religious criticism of science: If you ask a religious person to prove the existence of God, you'll be told that it's a matter of faith; he is in your heart; you can't ask for proof; maybe even that it's blasphemy just to ask the question. But when the same person turns to the topic of science, they start saying "Where's your proof? There's no evidence! That's not rational! That argument is illogical!"
Suddenly they're scientists! What's up with that?