Some people with very poor understanding of actual science will insist that since we don't know everything that we cannot at least tentatively discount unlikely explanations, in favor of more prosaic explanations, because not being familiar with this particular situation, we cannot, of course, have any basis for determining what is likely and what is unlikely. This is because these people have a comic book understanding of the history of science, what it is and how it works.
A comic book understanding of spiritual sciences when applied to the absolute understanding of reality as it is applied to a science yet to be defined is comical.
It's as productive to argue with one of these persons as it is to argue with a rock about composition of stars.
It's as productive to argue as a basis of education and evolution, as it is to be a rock ignorant of the stars and the rocks connection to the stars. Everything is relative to a perspective of opinion. Everything is connected and alive regardless of opinion.
Anybody seen the PBS special on inside a cult? The one about Michael Travessor? See, this guy predicts the end of the world - and it doesn't happen. His cult members find a way to justify this post facto. And of course they think he's very wise and he thinks he's very wise. He's agonizingly dumb, but the followers are as impervious to reason as, say, fake mediums or reptilian conspiracy theorists. Leon Festinger wrote about this in 1956.
I guess this is like insinuating science has created the means to destroy the world 10 times over without considering the potential of the ignorance that would use it. Poisons that destroy the growth and development of babies which are saturating the groundwater we drink and a few other things we could add to the list. Blind enthusiasm without any conscience or insight to the repercussions of choice.
Not exactly a scientific approach. but then.......
