We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The problem is that "science" doesn't explain everything, because we don't KNOW everything. And a lot of what we think we know, is wrong.
Don't get me wrong; science is great stuff. My degree is in Engineering Physics, so I'm pretty familiar with science. But too often, scientists extrapolate what we know off into the unknown, and while this often works (or close....) it doesn't ALWAYS work. Sometimes we scientists get stuff wrong, too.
And remember that just because we have degrees and we've studied all this stuff, that doesn't mean you can take it all literally when we say stuff that really doesn't make any sense at all.
science doesn't explain everything but not because we don't know everything. that's a logical disconnect. science doesn't explain everything because that's not its purpose. what's the source of this persistent false idea and inevitable straw man that science tries to explain "everything"? metaphysics, philosophy, ethics and certainly morality are not within the scope of science. as No.2 points out, science can give us Zyklon B, but it doesn't tell us how to use it.
science is supposed to "extrapolate" into the unknown, and theories are often wrong. that's its job; that's how the process works. but this is only within the natural range of a branch of science. a paleontologist's theory about theology is as useless as a biblical scholar's opinion on stem birds.
you seem to be claiming in your last paragraph that only when science makes sense are nonscientists to take it literally (presumably you mean accept at face value). this is the other side of the argument from ignorance coin. you're an engineering physicist. never heard of the field. but if I needed to know engineering physics, I'd hire some dude with a pocket protector and a degree to explain it and I'd take it as truth even though I don't understand the first thing about Bell's Theorem.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz
The "Engineering Physics" program is all the physics that you'd normally take to get a Bachelors of Science in Physics. But since the degree is granted, not through the College of Liberal Arts (which includes the Mathematics, Physics, Astronomy and Chemistry majors, among others) but through the College of Engineering, we didn't take liberal arts electives like languages or philosophy or art; all of our normal electives had to come from the 300+ level Engineering programs. So, things like Fortran Programming, or Fundamentals of Materials Science, and Introduction to Nuclear Reactor Design. The University of Kansas has (or had...) its own SMALL nuclear reactor, and we got to use it. Sort of a smorgasbord of all the Engineering disciplines.
It gave us a good grounding in the sciences of "how is it supposed to work?", but also a good primer to "How do you design a system to prove it works that way."