The science story is not a suitable religion story unto itself.

Science’s claim to usefulness is its capacity for relative accuracy; not completeness. But our need for narrative is one that prioritizes completeness over objective accuracy. Half a narrative is no narrative at all.

Yes, our narrative should accommodate science at every turn… as far as science goes. But a proper, functional, narrative can’t wait for details that may come next century. It has an obligation to project the most scientifically plausible placeholders until they can be dependably verified or improved upon.

This is the only legitimate difference I can see between an ideal science and an ideal religion. One provides accuracy; the other, completeness. It should go without saying that the religion story is not a suitable science story unto itself.