Portions of the thinking (which is the model) go a long way towards describing reasonably enough how things possibly came together.
>>>> Is your thinking truly so backwards? <<<<
At least it's not relying upon salvaging an all or nothing type of rhetorical stance.
“Portions of the thinking (which is the model) go a long way towards describing reasonably enough how things possibly came together.”
No, they don’t. You could have reasonably claimed that a couple decades ago, but it doesn’t wash anymore. A model that only (very roughly) works for a single solar system and fails spectacularly when applied to any other solar system is not a proper model, unless you want to posit that the forces which shaped our solar system are completely different than the forces which shaped every other stellar system out there.
Since nobody is claiming that, the only viable conclusion is that the model only worked (roughly) in our solar system because they were forcing the equations to fit the observed phenomenon. That isn’t the proper way to do things, but unfortunately it’s all too common nowadays.
“At least it’s not relying upon salvaging an all or nothing type of rhetorical stance.”
It’s not a rhetorical stance, it’s a scientific stance, and it’s the proper one. You cannot salvage a model whose underlying assumptions have been demonstrated to be wrong. Once you know that is the case, you need to construct a new model, with new assumptions that are more in line with reality. That is how science works, and it’s the reason no scientists complained that they were taking an “all or nothing” approach when they had to abandon the luminiferous ether model after a single failed prediction.