Why should I reply if you’re “tentatively” leaving the thread?
In any case, I’ll reply, because I’ve got a really nice inside voice when I type.
And, yes, that’s the strawman. And it’s obvious. Scientists countenance physical objects of all kinds, not just those limited kinds which are directly observed. Only a naive philosopher studying science would come to the conclusion that the only things scientists have a right to believe in, given the scientific method, are directly observed objects.
The description I already gave suffices, contrary to your opinion. But I should have stated that this characterization of scientific reasoning leaves no room for a theistic hypothesis. Sorry. To your question of whether we should “limit ourselves in that way”, I’d say, of course, if Keller wants us to take any observed data we have as “clues” (for God’s existence) in any meaningful sense of the word that isn’t purely emotional.