Evolution Community

Number 1 isn't what present science tries to do.
There are theories, but none of them is proven. How things such as Big-Bang have been researched is not so easily explained by just saying "big bang" anyway.
It seems the Creationist could side with either "Big Bang" or "Steady State" theories anyway, since y'all wanna tell us who provided the Big Bang, or "Who" was already here, all the time, sitting around making planets full of water and hurling asteroids at one until it cracked open like a little seed pod and life issued forth from there.
Does this mean creationists can "fill in the blanks" with dogma? No.
Number 2 is presented by you as a logical fallacy.
You wish to insert ID where you can't figure it out, and you say "SCIENCE has no right a priori" ---Do you realize that you're just looking for an excuse to provide ID or Creation as an "answer"?
What kind of science is that?
I don't get the feeling you...

Harris: "Principle #2 is an idea that might allow some things to be understood in terms of evolution, but does not force the issue in the same way principle #1 does. Principle #1 makes it possible to conceive of scientific ALTERNATIVES to evolutionary interpretations."

These statements are meaningless because nobody believes that we are currently in a position to understand the origin of everything. The origin of the universe and the origin of life (for example) are open questions. However, the origin of species through an evolutionary process from a single, simple, common ancestor is fact. So, we can accept that statement 2 is true (that we are not currently in a position to explain everything) and still know that evolution is responsible for the great variety of life we see on this planet.

Harris: " You just undercut confidence in virtually all evolutionary interpretations of evidence, admitting that it stems from "lack of knowledge."

Way to twist...