My suspicion is that much of this could fall under the category of pseudo-science/fringe science "..because they appear to be supported by little data, appear to be untestable or are in conflict with better and more conventional interpretations "[Strahler: Science and Earth History Ch 8, p 55]
"Anothert basic ploy, called by Dutch the residue fallacy is for the pseudoscience advocate to point out that there are many things in nature that science cannot explain, and therefor all explanations offered by scientists are inherently suspect."
"Frequently the pseudo-scientist deliberately ignores the existence of satisfactory, well-supported explanations readily available in the published scientific literature. After offering the selected statement, the false claim is then made that no explanations whatsoever are forthcoming from science."
That assertion having been accepted by the gullible members of the public or the cult, there swifrtly follows a fallacy of logic, the _non sequitor_, to the effect that because science has no explanation, the asserted scenario or hypothesis of pseudoscience must be valid. This is the wll known fallacy of "proof from ignorance".