one thing I can say about you jack, is you sure is eloquent. I also think you read like a religious mystic, with all your talk of wonder and mystery. and I wonder, if you have considered that given that you are thus conceding limits to even your knowledge , being such a hardline atheist is inconsistent , since despite the mystery you discount a creator.   even dawkins inserts a ...probably...to his no.
interesting sideline about newtons other theories now discounted, but we were not talking about them. " muddying the waters" is the term that comes to mind. and I should add, that , though a theory may not be fully explained, as you so very eloquently alluded to gravity, it can be [and in this is] verified by experimental, testable, repeatable ,observational science, and thus there is little debate about its verity. then there is the theoretical, you concede, oort cloud. correct me if wrong but since this is not observed it was introduced only to fill the holes in the theory.