Actually, I support stu43t, I think you people were unfair with him and not so open minded that you all claimed.
You see guys, thats true with the scientific community in general in our society, it took the place religion had in the past, and I think that that is equaly wrong. When you have an authority deciding what is the "truth" it creats a dogmatism that is as strong as religion was in the past. This is even more accurate, when one refer to those so-called skeptic organisations that made a fool of themselves. One example I can refer to is homeopathy, anyone that has done a full real research of homeopathy has concluded that this kind of threatment in many health condition was near as good as conventional medecine, this has not stoped some ignorants to selectivily choose few researches that have shown that some homeopathic substances had no effects, when it was demonstrated later that the substances were administrated for the wrong condition. But has the skeptics changed their views ? No ! They have ridiculised homeopathy, when there is hundreds of researches proving their efficiancies, and even more, is that homeopathy was tried with success by governments to protect soldiers against poisned gases.
It makes me laugh when I read few so-called MD physicians that publish articles making fun of homeopathy and claiming that real researches have proven that it has no effects, when those same said researches have been proven in their turn to be flawed because the wrong substance was tried, and when on the other hand, there is hundreds and hundreds of tests from various laboratories, including governmental research insitutes, that have established that homeopathy works, and I chalange everyone here to come and prove me with studies that it does not, because for each one one may post, I will prove with evidences how the test was flawed and conterattack with 10 other studies for each posted.
Skeptics works usually by first supposing something is not possible, when I say skeptics, I refer here to those from various so-called skeptic organisations, it is now like a religion, a kind of establishment, a way for PhDs to make fool of other peoples and discuss about subjects they totally ignore, homeopathy is one of the greatest examples of those, where skeptics talk with their a.s... without having a clue, and when the principle behind homeopathy is exactlly the same as vaccins.
I am myself an agnostic, and a REAL skeptic, when I say real, I mean, not like those from so-called scientific establishment that subscribe to those skeptic magasines to ridiculise without any moral sense and knowledge of the subject(without even paying close attention to it) others.
I think what we are facing know is the danger that science is becoming a religion, and anything that would harm its foundations will become a taboo subject.
Another example wanted ? An example could be the theory of relativity, there is many contradictions between the relativity and QUantum mechanics, and what are called those phenomens that contradict relativity ? Well, the relativity paradoxes... foundamental physic is full of paradoxes, and only science now could permit such nonesenses as paradoxes, when it is not science, this paradoxes become "lies" nonesense" but put them in science and they become paradoxes. Other examples could be brough here, like the big-bang, I can bring a full range of problems brough by this theory, things that would have rejected the big-bang in the first place if a scientific methodology was used.
We come to the same point here, religion or dogmatic science ? Which one is worst ? In fact, I would say that religion right now is less worst than dogmatic science, for the only reason that even those religious individuals have to respect what science bring, they recognise the majority of the principles in our present societies, while those so-called skeptics, reject everything with biases, the kind of logic: "I will prove this is wrong, because it can't be possibly right."
The Bible has many nonsense, against logic, but what makes the Bible any more majical than the weird effects of QUantum mechanic ?
Now, natural selection, I do not believe that natural selection alone could explain life on Earth, and there is many studies bringing evidences for that, it seems that an animal could mutate and then bring this modification to the other generation, other things should be studied, but science we have only Earth as example, we need to wait. But that does not prove or disprove a "God" again, its just that there is a possibility that there is life because there is properties in this Universe that permit sych a thing, I think one of those very important properties is that this Universe permit "conscience" without it there is no way that life could evolve like it evolved.
I think I wrote to much right now, and there is no much time for me to revise and correct many mistakes in what I wrote. Sorrt in advance.
PS: Every possibilities should be open to discussion.