Our thinking is limited. No matter how much science we try to employ, we still end up with speculations. we come up with theories to try and explain everything, because we're too nassistic to accept the fact that we can't comprehend everything. theories keep changing because we haven't found facts yet. we were created to live on earth, not to fully understand how things work the way they do. God is mysterious & that's that.
Hmmm - let me fix that for you:
Our thinking is limited. No matter how much religion we try to employ, we still end up with hard-to-deny facts. we come up with biblical interpretations to try and explain everything, because we're too narcissistic to accept the fact that evidence is everything. Interpretations keep changing because we keep finding annoying contradictions. We have evolved to live on earth, not to fully understand how things work the way they do. Our understanding is incomplete but not often incorrect & that's that.
If you resort to religion - to even slightly admit the existence of an intelligence with literally zero limits to it's powers - then all bets are off. The omnipotent being can manipulate any experiment, change the contents of books, alter our brains to make us see, hear, think absolutely anything. They might promise not to do that - but with omnipotence they can ignore that promise. If religion is true - then there can be no rational, logical deductions about anything. No conversation produces enlightenment, no experiment produces reliable results, no course of reasoning brings valid conclusions...humanity knows nothing about the universe.
If you resort to science - you must follow where the experimental data and other observations lead you, and adopt some form of formal logic. The results will often be unexpected and sometimes contradict what your senses tell you. But if you followed the process - the conclusions are as unassailable as the observations you collected and the axioms of your mathematics.
We've learned (slowly and painfully) to be careful about our observations. When Sir Isaac Newton came up with his laws of motion, we was only able to test them with objects bigger than an inch and smaller than a solar system...his range of available speeds went from perhaps one inch per hour to the speed of Mercury in it's orbit...he could find no mass bigger than the sun or smaller than a grain of sand.
We called his conclusions "The Laws of Motion".
His claims were necessarily wide of the mark outside of the range of his observations - but remarkably good within that range. (Although he didn't understand Mercury).
Only when we discovered the finite speed of light and that this was a universal constant did Albert Einstein (with enormous reluctance) conclude that Newton was mistaken...Newton had no opportunity to know this. We do not say "Einsteins Laws of Relativity" - we say "Theory" because we know to exhibit more caution about universal truths.
So now - we test our theories at the limits of what we're able. We find that a subtle error in Newton's understanding of the precession of the orbit of Mercury is elegantly resolved by relativity. The LIGO experiment demonstrates that black holes exist and that they sometimes collide and that gravity itself moves no faster than the speed of light - we take this knowledge an slot it carefully into the framework we have - and it's a beautiful and perfect fit. It adds strength to Einstein's theory - it removes one more place where an error might be revealed. Over hundreds of thousands of experiments, we fill in more holes - but reveal not one single imperfection.
This is how science proceeds.
We don't know everything - but what we believe we do know is unassailled by contradictions.
If FET wishes to slot a new piece into the puzzle - it has to fit perfectly into what is known and well understood. If FET cannot explain simple, commonplace observations - then it's WRONG - and can be rejected by reasonable, thinking beings.