You sound like a "confused" observer! What is your definition of "science"!?

You ask "is there left any room for science to consider itself openly as an ongoing partial attempt to understand the physical elements of a universe that is mostly mysterious ? What is a "partial attempt"!? and you talk of "science" like it is a "thing"!!!

You then ask "Why do so many elements of sub-science consider that thoughts of meaning
and purpose in the universe are "unscientific" by definition. What definition is that ?
Well, it really depends on one's definition of science!!!

Also, what are "thoughts of meaning and purpose in the universe"? Do mean like does the Universe have a reason to exist!? I think that you are more on the philosophical side of things than on the scientific side of things with that question...

You then ask "Are they pawns to the creationists or are they lacking in scientific rigour in their thought process ? What scientific rigour!? Do you mean reference!? logic!? reason!? structure!? What is your idea for one to "manage" their thought processes!!!???

You finally say: "The "fine tuning" question of theoretical physics only has one answer at present that satisfies Occam's Razor. Very very few people realise that they don't understand when they think they understand". That is truly ridiculous!!!

Check out that, for example, wave equations have multiple answers. Maybe you should do some research first before making all of these silly observations! Like why is Occam's Razor so important to you!!!???

-wirelessguru1