Available ambiguity leads to effective modeling.
Science, for example, does not really know what dark matter is. It must exist because it has a measurable effect. Then, like we can algebraically solve for x, we model the problem in the form of solving for the missing value, or what we don’t really know (but like Kant said, we actually do).
Notice the formal, mechanical operation for knowing what the truth is, reduced to a form we can all agree on. The mechanics is so commonly divisible that Kant described it as intuitive knowledge (having the indivisibility of simultaneity).
Since science does not admit to a cause, or purpose, because a first cause or a prior purpose assumes the existence of God, which then makes us form a tautology (organize things to support what we say the truth naturally is–i.e., transacting the interpretation), what we naturally do is form an effective model (create a work of art) that imitates life.
Like the pantheist observes, however, no matter how wrong a hypothesis may be (like Kant said) it always exists with the emergent property of being right, having the simultaneity (the categorical imperative) of a natural existence.
Science is not at all incompatible with theism. Quite the contrary, it effectively models for it.