Science doesn't PROVE anything... it provides evidence for what is most likely.

Studies don't prove anything. They provide evidence that supports or doesn't support a hypothesis. I've done a lot of research in this area, and how people respond to music depends on a lot of things such as a degree of extroversion, familiarity of the music, volume of the music, the type of task being performed while listening to music, emotional state, whether or not the music has lyrics, how fast the music things, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. And I'm not sure why you say it is illogical for students to listen to music in class. Sometimes students have to work on something independently. Take for example a free writing assignment. Sometimes, students will instructed to respond to a prompt and write for 25-30 minutes. During this time they will not be talking to one another, nor will the teacher be talking. So it's not illogical in the least.

Children misbehave for several reasons. Sometimes it is due, in part, to some type of psychopathology, other times it is due to their personality, disposition, or attachment style. Other causes could be due to parenting styles, diet, socioeconomic status, genetics, their current developmental stage, culture, family make-up, and many many other factors. There is no one single factor that causes a child to misbehave; it's a product of a multitude of things.

I agree with most of your points, but you should never accept what a scientist tells you just because they are a scientist. Many studies have methodological flaws contained within them or use invalid measures. There is no such thing as a perfect study; they all have flaws. People who read journals are not paranoid about being lied to, they just are skeptical about everything they read or hear. That's actually what makes a good scientist. If everyone accepted everything as fact, just because they heard it from a scientist, the entire scientific process would come to a halt.

Science as a process is itself unbiased. Scientists, those who do science, are still human beings, so of course they can lie. But that doesn't invalidate the scientific method whatsoever. And yes, scientists disagree with each other all the time. That's what progress is. One person producing one set of results, another person producing different results, and then trying to find out what is contributing to the inconclusiveness. Additionally, scientists are not always right. They do not know everything. And yes, they sometimes manipulate the data to support their hypothesis. This is what makes the peer review process so valuable. Should one decide to intentionally manipulate their data, the scientific community will eventually find out through experimental replications, review of the unethical researcher's statistical analysis, or questionable research methods. This is what makes science the best method to understand the world in which we live.

As to your points about love, justice and virtue... those are all human constructs that science is not equipped to deal with nor concerned about. However, science does speak to love.. In that it is most likely due, in part, to a release of oxytocin in the brain.

You are right. No scientist will ever be able to observe macro evolution. That's because evolution takes millions of years to occur and the human life span is not that long. This does not in any way make the theory of evolution unscientific. Rather, the theory of evolution is based entirely on observations; from the Darwin's finches to genetic markers. I think where you may be misguided is your concept of what a theory is. A theory is derived from a set of many, many experiments (all of which contain testable hypotheses), and it is used as a framework to explain the results. A theory doesn't need to be observed directly for the scientific community to consider it valid. As long as there is enough evidence supporting the theory, the scientific community will consider it to be a logical explanation for how things work and why we observe one thing instead of another. Moreover, theories have the power to make predictions about the world, and the theory of evolution is no exception. Darwin successfully predicted the existence of Morgan's sphinx moth of Madagascar more than 40 years before it's discovery using his theory of evolution as the theoretical framework for his hypothesis.

What else is there? What if you were on trial for a murder which you did not commit. Would you want the jury to come back with a guilty verdict because they had a gut feeling about it, despite the evidence for your innocence?

What else is there? What if you were on trial for a murder which you did not commit. Would you want the jury to come back with a guilty verdict because they had a gut feeling about it, despite the evidence for your innocence?

This is not a valid argument. One would only expect to find life in a universe that supports it. The fact that we live in a universe that is conducive to life is by no means evidence for an intelligent designer or any other God. The laws of physics are what they are. Would mind proving an evidentiary application of the laws of thermodynamics which supports the existence of a much larger internal being?