That's not the case at all though.
When experimental physicists encounter a problem that they cannot explain, they don't just make something up; this is an incredibly rudimentary and frankly quite wrong way of interpreting the work of scientists. The experimental physicists in fact turn to the theoretical physicists for solutions to their problem. The theoretical physicists work on the problem through advanced mathematics and usually come up with a number of conflicting hypothesis for the experimental physicists to work from. It's the task of the experimental physicists then to sort through the work of the theoretical and test the various hypothesis for validity. At no stage has anything been simply made up. If you look into the nature of the tools utilised by theoretical physicists and mathematicians you'd see for yourself that they're an absolute world away from the fanciful meanderings of the religious mind.
Religion makes things up. Science finds things out.
So we now have a science based upon mathematical likelihood, rather than observation? That is not science i am afraid Cider, and the fact you and others who support the idea that such a premise represents actual science is the problem.
Super string theory is completely untestable, yet if the notion of SST supports a particular view, then it somehow becomes more acceptable on that basis alone. The Big Bang theory is another example. Quantum physics supports the notion of observation by consciousness being the instigator of events. So the Big Bang theory could be perceived as only coming into being by an act of observation. I encourage you to check out the work of quantum theorist Amit Gotswami, who claims nothing in a matter reality is possible without the observation of a concisousness to manifest it into being.
I am not saying i hold to that theory, but he is mainstream, and it is an interesting take to say to the least. It also fits with Heisenburgs uncertainty principle where the intent of the observer allows position or velocity to be determined, but not both at the same time.
Could then not the instigation of the big Bang itself be attributed to an act of observation? If so, by who? Science has no answer to this problem, because it doesn't incorporate such aspects of consciousness within it's standard model. Yet it is more than happy to overlook these major flaws in their model, and write off anything it cannot explain as an anamoly or singularity, and content themselves with that.
You would probably refute this despite Princeton University conducting many experiments which suggest that intention of consciousness has bearing upon the material world. Positive mental attitude, intuition, remote viewing, psychic phenomena, mind over matter. Yet does mainstream science support the notion that it is mind that has bearing on matter?
Not to my knowledge, in fact the opposite is true. Science actually supports the notion that mind is simply a byproduct of matter, and without matter, mind or conciousness has no bearing. SST also suggest the possibility of 12 other dimensions which co-exist with our own. Yet when people have talked in the past about alien life, ghosts etc existing in realities different to our own, they were and are still ridiculed.
I don't really see the difference between the 2. Gods, aliens, ghosts are rarely claimed to exist in our reality, and we now have mainstream mathematical theory that suggests the possibility that the realms in which these entitites have long been claimed to occupy, actually exist. So is even the possibility of corporeal life now accepted? Of course not, despite science itself inadvertently providing the maths to support the possibility. If not, why not? Simply because it doesn't fit with the standard model.
What is the meaning of this?