The article does specify that "nobody can explain how wings work", not that "nobody knows how wings work". It also tries to go into "but WHY do the Navier-Stoke

The article does specify that "nobody can explain how wings work", not that "nobody knows how wings work". It also tries to go into "but WHY do the Navier-Stokes equations work like this", which is just not how physics works. But yeah, there is just not an explanation that is both simple and complete and journalists have a pretty rough time dealing with that.