Ah, yes, the God of The Gaps. Your argument is identical to the "we don't know how it was done. so God done it" argument of the creationist crowd (whatever they call them selves this week). It's a bad argument, and it should certainly not be used to make drastic, and very, very expensive change.
It's not even remotely the same. His argument is based on evidence and data, not ignorance. He's asking for an alternate hypothesis that has as much explanatory power as his evidence-based model.
I ecourage you to review Genesis 22:7,8.
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
God WILL provide, not God HAS provided. Abraham knew God was not evil and therefore God would not allow Isacc to be killed. Maybe he would resurect him. Maybe the knife wouldn't hurt Isacc. He had no idea how god would resolve the issue, but he knew he would be returning with Isacc.
Okay. So... in essence... what we have is this:
"Daddy, why are you taking me out into the woods with a knife?"
"Well, son, we're going to go sacrifice an animal to God together."
"But daddy, I don't see a sheep or a goat; where's the animal we're going to sacrifice?"
(knowing full well that the plan is to kill his son) "Oh, don't worry about it, kiddo. I'm sure we'll find something we can sacrifice."
This is called "lying to your son so you can obey your god," not having faith that God will provide. There's no evidence at all that Abraham thought God would save Isaac.
TFA says some scientists have done such an experiment and it appeared to indicate the subject actually could detect radio waves.
A couple problems: first, a study with a single test subject is not at all scientific (what were the controls?); second, how many people did they go through with negative results before they hit on one with "positive" results?
I think I've been pretty clear in saying that the problem is the hypocricy of one side claiming that the scientists they disagree with are unethical because they are paid to do their research while the scientists they agree with are lilly white despite being paid to do their research.
Yeah... you're kind of equating the two. One group of scientists is being paid to do science; the other is being paid to be whores.
The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.