SHOULD A MODEL THAT EXPLAINS THE UNIVERSE TO US MATTER MORE THAN THE MODEL BEING WHOLLY CORRECT?

Nobody denies that you should only let yourself be taught by what the evidence says.  In practice, that can be very complicated.  Able investigators may come to opposite conclusions.

In religion, Muslims claim Allah has given evidence for Islam.  Christians say that Jesus' claims are backed up by sufficient evidence.

Many work out systems that try to explain life and the universe based on evidence.  If the evidence does not take them far enough they will work out something that they think gets believability from its explanatory value.  A contradictory explanation is not an explanation so it needs to agree with itself. 

Michael Ruse is a major figure in defending and representing the view that science works out coherent systems and that matters more than the systems matching up to reality. You need a paradigm that agrees with itself. This is not saying you can invent a system from scratch and call it science. It is saying that you let evidence inform you and as you don’t know it all you need a system that is helpful and which allows for endeavours to make it more accurate.    You need a model but that model has to go or be adjusted if it ends up being shown false.

The fact is that a science model cannot involve the Islamic version of God or the Christian or the Mormon or whatever.  As God is everywhere and thus to be found everywhere his being left out is tantamount to denial of his existence or importance.