Should knowledge succumb to spirituality?

There was something wrong with the 'Vedanta' I was learning. I knew it, just what didn't come to me until yesterday. It was the inconcievability of the 'Brahman' - which is defined as everything - the cosmic entity. The argument was that consciousness and knowledge are also a part of the Brahman. But so is a thought a part of a human and contains within itself the consciousness and knowledge of the human and itself too.
The reason was that the word 'inconceivable' sounded defeatist and also that it killed human curiosity. It said that all science and all knowledge was a lie and the truth could be gained by only spiritual means. And this I find objectionable. Not because I feel it is conceivable, I don't know about that, but because I find it goes agains my nature.
Everyone has a philosophy. Even the auto driver who writes at the back of his auto 'Meri chalti hai to teri kyon jalti hai?'. That's his philosphy - fight it out and if you are doing well show it. The objective is to find the right philosophy for oneself. And live by it, put it out in the open. May the best philosophy survive. In a dynamic world even Bangladesh can beat Australia, even if it might seem most impossible.
On a different tangent controlling evolution is one big mistake. Allow it a dynamic growth.