[aruanan]

Ah, but that's the crux of the argument. The scientists with an agenda are out to put science vs. religion, so that unless something can be scientifically proven, it's bunk.

In other words, for certain things they demand standards of proof they would consider ludicrous if applied to them in everyday life. They are still echoing Thomas, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." Of course, setting the standards of proof for whether or not an event occurred has nothing to do with whether or not it actually occurred, though one could, by setting certain standards, preclude oneself from ever actually accepting that the event took place. But that's not the same thing as proving that the event never took place. Too bad some really smart people haven't caught on to this. But then, echoing Pascal, the heart has its reasons of which the reason knows nothing.

[Conservative til I die]

Exactly. I have no problem with scientific standards. Believe me, I don't have the opposite agenda, which is to say that science is the tool of the devil. My issue is with scientists who do use the scientific method to prove a point. And they hide behind science, which has this rep as this pure, untainted art, when science can be manipulated. People can do shoddy studies and research, and "accidentally" leave out some sort of variable when performing tests, when they want to prove something, like say that the Shroud dates to the 13th century, which they visibly and excitedly announced.