The purpose of science, as I understand it, is to discover the underlying laws governing the 'real world'. (I take it for granted that such laws exist and can be discovered). We do that by creating (inventing) a model and using the model to make predictions about the real world. We test the models by doing experiments (with the model telling us what to keep constant and what to vary). When many predictions are borne out (repeatably, by many experimenters), we declare that the model seems to be 'isomorphic' (in some way) to the real world. This declaration elevates the model to a 'theory'. Through invincible ignorance I will conflate the terms 'model' and 'theory' and use them interchangeably. There is usually a spectrum of models because science has evolved. If your model of the world is that it is carried on the back of an elephant that is standing on a turtle (and its turtles all the way down), and you are satisfied with a poetic view of the universe, that is fine. But if you want to calculate eclipses, then it is not good enough and you need to advance to something like the Polemaic system with its crystalline spheres and epicycles. (I will ignore cartesian vortices). If you want to send a rocket to Saturn, then you need the Copernican model and newtonian mechanics. If you then want to calculate how neutron stars waltz around each other, you must have einsteinian mechanics. Each model must be driven to the point where it breaks down, when it must be either extended or replaced with a new paradigm. Where you stop depends on what you want (or need) to understand. It is strictly pragmatic. Belief has nothing to do with it. Independent, repeatable, verification of the predictions provides the 'truth'. If your world view is that the earth is 4000 years old and that darwinism is wrong, you are welcome to your view. But, don't pretend that you can study any real biologically-based science or be a paleontologist with that limited view. If you do try to do that, you are a charlatan because more cogent models exist and have been tested many times and in a multiplicity of ways against 'reality' and are consistent across many (if not all) other scientific disciplines. Of course they may have some apparent inconsistences - but resolving them is part of the game of science.