Science is unscientific because at critical times it draws conclusion on unseen based on unseen: Isn't it?

The hypothesis and / or assumption of full visibility and / or full knowledge.

As The God willed human scientists, no grudge against them, have discovered a lot of things, which have changed human perceptions on things we see or experience. These scientific discoveries, many of them are in fact accidental, also have easen our lives, as The God willed. Talking about accidental great discovering actually reminds me of The God's will in our efforts and in their success.

Talking about influence of scientific ideas or tools on things we see, also reminds me of the extent we believe in things, which science has never been able to observe or see; yet science has given its knowledge based on observation of the unseen… One of the examples of limitations of our scientific visibility is like observing the space. What percent of the deep space we can actually see through available scientific devices or tools? I would say if full space is taken as 100, we cannot even see a faction of a percent. So how do we generalise on the 100% based on our visibility of nothing?

Science is about knowledge based on observation. In that regard isn’t it unscientific to draw such conclusions about things, which we cannot really see a substantial part to be able to have generalised knowledge or have a scientific knowledge? I think it would rather scientific to acknowledge the limitation of science in those regards rather than giving the human race an apparent confidence that science is able to solve or explain all problems both seen and unseen or unseeable.

There was a time human used to think that they are at the centre of the universe. Then scientist like Galileo discovered devices, with which human could see a little more than they had previously been able to see. With that slight improvement in human visibility the whole concept of human presence relative to the universe was changed or corrected at that time. But then as we have now come so far away from that time and our visibility has improved so many fold that in fact we have now come to another level of the same situation of Galileo’s time that we are now claiming the same way our high institutions of Galileo’s time used to claim. We are again claiming how rest of the universe look like based on what our eyes can see or observe! The size of the problem has just gone bigger than that of Galileo’s time but essentially it is the same...

We are carried away by the little help scientific knowledge is providing in our daily life. 'Little' in the sense of the complete universe problems though 'Little' is not that little in relation to our daily life. Recent Katrina and Sendai disasters, on two of the most advanced countries in the world are sufficient to prove how little is our scientific knowledge to deal with The God given forecalls.

The great universe problem I’m referring to are like,

- Did matters already exist or The God alone existed always and He caused the matters to exist.

- Did matters evolve themselves to forms of lives or The God caused matters to transform into lives?

- and so on