I agree with you that we should not immediately default to the God-argument for things we do not understand. My point was not so much that there things we do not understand 'yet' scientifically. My point is that there things from which I wonder whether it would be possible 'at all' to understand scientifically. To give an example: I study ethics and the approach of ethics where we consider humans as nothing more than (albeit very complicated) biological machines I do not buy. No scientific explanation I know has a sufficient explanation for free will and as such for individual responsibility. Here science stops but nonetheless we are confronted with the lack of it every day. Science cannot explain great art or great music either.
So I just wanted to say there are realms where if we try to reduce them to science we might lose a lot. I am not a religious person but I can imagine that religion is one of those areas. The moral of the story is then: get truths in the scientific realm by applying scientific criteria like evidence etc… Get 'truths' in other realms by using the criteria for those realms like beauty, insight or comfort.

Haven't you just fallen into the trap of invoking a god/mystical being for something you don't understand? Why does religion become the default for when things aren't comprehensible? We are a long way off understanding the universe, and that fact alone is exciting. By using a god hypothesis to cover everything we don't yet understand we are in effect undermining progress and achievement by not allowing the natural wonder of the universe to amaze on its own merit. It may be as we uncover more of the "how" questions we start to piece together "why". These two aspects may be intrinsically linked, we just haven't ventured far enough. Invoking religion by default is rather offensive to scientific endeavor. If we can't answer every question with science (in its present form) it doesn't mean there isn't a scientific answer, it just may be lurking outside our human perception.

I agree that the argument god did it falls outside the realms of rationality. But my main point is that there are certain questions within us that do not want a rational answer. And thats good because the universe is constructed in such a way that certain question cannot be answered scientifically. So we search for other methods, one of which may be religion.

Also, religion doesn’t provide a why, it simply invokes a ‘god did it’ argument which falls outside the realms of rationality and gives those who invoke it a sense of higher purpose, rather than accepting the universe and how it operates and for how it wonderfully is.

Evolution is the only candidate as it is the only scientifically based method to explain variance we see today. We may change the way we understand how evolutionary processes drive selection, but the central paradigm will remain.

Ive just typed this on my phone, so excuse spelling etc.