You are right that 50% or more of all peer reviewed science paper results cannot be replicated. Science in the west is far far worse than we ever imagined it to be. I draw the line at the computability of the universe. I explain it here: https://poal.co/s/AskPoal/397745 Search for "It's a feature of the universe. A few details:" to jump to the post. The universe is computable therefore it is knowable. Just because people have bad skills at doing the computation or are bad actors and fudge the results to make it say what they need it to say does not make the universe non-computable. In other words, with enough time and resources, one person could extract all the rules of mathematics and logic out of the universe and re-discover 100% of what we have discovered (supposedly). That doesn't mean that we know where the universe came from. It doesn't mean that god doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean that what we know about the universe currently isn't wrong, because if you have any experience in engineering you know that humans don't deal with absolutes but only approximations, tolerances and calibration. We cannot ever know anything for sure but we can compute results at ever greater precision to get ever more precise approximations of the truth. What it does mean is that we have extracted enough math and logic from the universe to have created a verifiability loop / process against we can run calibration tests and keep on building up accumulated knowledge. Just because we have communist white hating teachers insisting that 2 + 2 = 4 is racist and that cultural norms of niggers can mean 2 + 2 = 5 does not invalidate math, logic and the scientific method. It is possible to know things without giving up your faith in god.