As per modern particle "physicists" - the scare quotes are because I no longer consider them to be physicists, though they occupy postdoc positions and professorships in academic physics departments, and publish in academic journals - a scientific explanation is of the form "If fact A requires B, then A is an explanation of B".
By chasing links from Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong you can find the culprits.
Let's look at an example:
Fact A = We earthlings exist. This requires
B = The earth's orbit is in the habitable zone around the sun.
Our existence, therefore, is an explanation of the earth's orbit.
Fact A = (Olber's paradox) - The night sky is dark, which requires
B = The universe is expanding.
(Olber's paradox is that if our universe is big enough (which it is) then any direction we look there should be stars, in fact, stars enough that the sky should be very bright. Read about it in Wikipedia. This example of mine is without explanation ruled to be somehow different from the previous example, btw.)
We can multiply examples.
Fact A = Airplanes fly, which requires
B = Airplane wings generate lift.
Therefore, the fact that airplanes fly, in the Brave New (Particle) Physics is an explanation of the lift generated by airplane wings.
I kid you not. Read Peter Woit's despairing lament about the descent of particle physics into pseudo-science.
PS: A much better way of stating the problem is,
a. Suppose Fact A has no provided way of being a cause of B (i.e., Fact A is in the nature of an effect of B rather than a cause of B.)
b. Suppose Fact A requires B (i.e., the effect requires the particular cause B.)
c. Modern particle physicists, in particular, a large number of string theorists, regard A as an explanation of B.
West Africa, as Seen From Its Barbershops
37 minutes ago