The trouble with theoretical science is it’s getting quasi-religious. Ironically, but perhaps not coincidentally, this is happening just as religion, in its efforts to gain acceptance in the classroom, increasingly disguises itself as quasi-scientific.

The problem is not with the religious. They are happy to live without tangible evidence - that’s the gap called faith you leap over when you’re headed into the arms of God. But scientists should know better.

Yet all over the known universe scientists are busy hypothesizing.

Quantum physicists posit theories of parallel universes without one iota of proof that the strings that they are supposed to be made of even exist. Astronomers base universal laws on dark matter without ever spotting a molecule of it. Even Stephen Hawking, in an effort to regain the ascendancy in black hole theory, poses solutions rather than proves them.

Of course, it’s axiomatic that science needs its dreamers but without the necessary proof all science is fiction.

What scientists seem to have forgotten is it is entirely reasonable not to know everything. Although “We Don’t Know Yet” would probably not be a NY Times bestseller or a PBS special, it is far more verifiable than most current theories. Nor should we be ashamed of our ignorance. We’ve only really been thinking objectively since the Enlightenment – a little under 300 years. Einstein’s answer to whether God exists - “I cannot prove he doesn’t” - is not only an eloquent response but a human one – it reminds us of the limitations of our knowledge.

In the end, a world full of ambiguity is a far more interesting place to live than one where we know all the answers.