“Science can’t explain everything”
This is a tiresome canard that is casually thrown to people who: dedicate themselves to destroying bad ideas, avoid living a lie in a bubble of opinions meant to shield harsh reality, or otherwise simply demand evidence.
That “science can’t explain everything” is both an anti-intellectual conversation-stopper and a poorly-veiled ratification of other ‘modes of verification’ such as: emotive rationalization (which is senseless to use on other people), self-serving narratives, and “faith.” No one expects science to “explain everything” at the moment. It’s absurd. To claim that something is not explainable by science in principle is logically contradictory as a knowledge claim.
The last, and overarching deficiency, of saying “science can’t explain everything” is that it is a cop-out, and one that is likely to not prove or support anything about what the person saying it was arguing. Anyone who thinks about the statement is likely to notice that to utter it would be a waste of breath. It would not be a waste of breath to point out, as Carl Sagan did that “The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it’s just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age.”