If science can't answer these questions then at least the answer is not a foregone conclusion.

Some philosophies (and even some religions, I believe) do allow for the idea that there is an "unknowable." -- we do not now know nor can explain everything; we maybe never will.

I don't think "science," is out to prove or disapprove God. Science is out to do science and perhaps it may appear 'atheistic,' because they seek reasons they can observe; just saying: "It's God's will," or "this is how God does it," is not a valid answer for science, although it might be ok for theology.

For a long time, science couldn't explain how magnetism worked - then the connection between elecctricity and magnetism was discovered and the world was transformed. Currently, science can't precisely explain why gravity works (just how it does), but that lack of an answer doesn't mean that the questions stop; most scientific types are confident that someday the answers will be found and there will be no need to posit a theory of "intelligent falling".

As citizenbfk said, "God's will" is not a scientifically valid answer because it's not observable - it's a question stopper. Put it this way: nobody who believes in Zeus' thunderbolts would have invented a lightning rod.

ha.

I think noted scientist like Einstein and Darwin came to define themselves as agnostic.

When you're entrenched in a specific faith or cult, "agnostic," might not sound good but I'd suggest it may be a-ok....and it really quite a substantial statement of faith by men who had breakthrough insights.

Believing in "something," is profoundly more than believing in nothing. --- it's just a question of what is that "something," (or someone). It's a question of definition.