wait so your argument is we tested a theory over and over and get the same result every time. but when we get a different result is that the rules we derived were suddenly not in play? doesn't that just spit in the face of occum's razor?
edit: "but in the end that is a huge long stack of correlation that we cannot prove causation on." what are they?
edit 2: wait are you arguing philosophy of how do we know what we are seeing is real and not just some anomaly in the scheme of things? if so, I'm out. this kind of metaphysical study was never my strong suit nor do I have the background to discuss it at a significantly academic level.
First off, your second edit is pretty much my take on it. I'm strongly pro-science (I'm not anti-religion, though I'm anti-abuse of religion for worldly/political goals - there's a difference).
Secondly though - Occam's Razor, while very useful to whittle down hypotheses and determine sensible theories, can never lead to the truth on its own. OR states to, in case of conflicting possible theories, go with the less involved/more easily explained/most logical one. It does
not indicate this one is, of necessity, the true or right one.
That there is no personal God-man sitting on a cloud we've pretty much disproven. That there is no uninvasive, all-encompassing pantheistic will (aka "the Force") or some sort of as-yet undetectable (radiation was around in the time of the Dino's, even if no-one could measure it or see it in any way) presence, or a type of energy/being/otherdimensional McGuffin is very
probable, it's certainly suggested by Occam's Razor, but there's simply no scientific way of proving it.
Science is, by definition, ever evolving and ever searching for the truth. I'm not saying we should go and try to disprove God - it's ontologically impossible to do so. We do, however, have to be open to the possibility that modern day science is still getting some basic facts totally wrong. Not in a "turns out the Sun does spin around the Earth! Oops!" sort of way, of course. Modern scientists claiming we have "definite" proof of, say, what caused the Big Bang, or that we have "all the answers" or "can explain everything" are either lying or deluding themselves because they need a firm stick in the mud to compare everything to - falling for the same fallacy so many religious people do.
To restate: say I find an egg, under a nest, in my yard. I can conceive of three possibilities: A) it fell out of the nest above it; B) Jupiter came down from the Heavens and willed it into being; C) my father found it on a walk in the forest, picked it up and put it in our yard to confuse me.
Now, OR pretty clearly indicates option A. Option B seems the most far-fetched. It's perfectly OK to
assume A. It's scientifically sensible to go and
test A somehow - either by proving A, or by disproving B and C. Let's assume I go talk to my dad, and find out he
didn't put that egg there. That disproves C - thus further giving credence to A....and to B.
This brings us to Popper's position to consider non-falsifiability (is that a word? I think not) a basis for whether or not something can be a scientific statement - if you can't falsify it, it isn't science. This is the basis for many scientists to disregard religious statements (because it's, as I said, impossible to prove "there is no divinity"). I'm not sure I agree with him on this point (I generally agree with him though - he's an agnostic for the same reason I am though he approaches it from the other side)... but I do agree with him it's best for each to stick to their own "turf". Science has fairly little to say about ethics (even though it sometimes tries); religion has fairly little to say about facts (even though it often tries).