Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.
So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]
Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable? And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.
