Science does not say "outrageous theory A" or B is wrong, though. It ignores what it can't prove, but it doesn't come out and deny it, because it would be pretty hypocritical - it bases it's claims on data and logic. If a scientist 1000 years ago said that "Big Bang" guy was wrong, he would be making a mistake. Every time an outrageous (but sometimes very right) theory comes along there are different stances a scientist can take. Some blatantly deny the possibility and some, while skeptic, don't go out of their way to try and kill that idea. That's what I meant by a spectrum. As you can see, there is, if nothing else, a "trinary" choice a scientist can make here.
Not and doing so would be pretty arbitrary on my part. I have no mean to verify either of those cases. There is something to be said about giving the example of something, which I'm guessing is something you want to stress out as outrageous (the unicorn thing), when trying to prove your point. It's not wrong, it's perfectly fine. But there's at least another way to look at it. Do you believe that at this point in time a blond girl in Beijing, is doing sit-ups while eating a taco with chocolate topping and watching the latest David Lynch movie in an old tv set from the 50s? You can believe so, you can say it's possible and you can also choose to say it's not happening.Then I am curious: do you consider the existence of a deity equally as unlikely as the existence of invisible hollow unicorns?
What the! Now you are putting words into my mouth. Listen, I believe in EVIDENCE. The rest I choose not to bother myself with. I'm not saying science commands just as much respect as religion, for me. I think you are trying to saying science is atheist but that isn't the case. There are loads of religious scientists throughout history. My point is that a similarly outrageous (in relation to what was/is commonly believed) theory today, would probably see the same kind of dismissal by people such as you , which DOESN'T change the fact that it could still be right.This is a striking example of the advances made by reason and science, which I would think would be at odds with your implied argument that, ultimately, science is just another "viewpoint" which commands no more respect than religion.