I perfectly agree. Science has absolutely no bearing on things that cannot be perceived in any way, shape or form. Then again, if it is a something that does nothing, is it a something at all, or just a nothing? Does something which cannot be perceived exist, or is it merely a baseless superstition? Is God a material or energetic form with some effect upon the world, something quantifiable and observable? If so, then spiritual science is no longer a hypothetical endeavor but is based in solid science, making the point null. If not, then spiritual science is a study of the incarnation of nothing, in which case there is no base for it and no reason to pursue it, for there is nothing to study. In fact, science is much more inclusive and complete than you give it credit for. Scientists have discovered the basic components necessary for rudimentary life, even created them in a lab out of what we suspect are most likely the original conditions of the earth. So much for the origins of life... and now on to the start of the universe. Scientists are developing the entirety of superstring theory, which will be able to explain the laws of physics and forces in full, possibly even how the universe began. As for consciousness, you are right. Science cannot explain it... yet. Never mistake the current state of things for the outermost limit of possibility. It is quite possible that the advancement of neuroscience will reveal the full working of the human mind in the decades to come. If, as you say, spiritual science works through what you perceive through the senses, then it falls under the proper realm of science as something which can be observed and, eventually, quantified. If it succeeds in its mission, then science will have added another branch to its myriad of subjects. Nothing more, nothing less.