Not to ignore what I just posted here, but let me put things a different way -- a way that Tito the Scientist would never have put them.

All of us know here that the mainstream can be wrong. We know that big companies are out for big profits and sometimes nothing will stand in their way, not human lives, not ethics of any kind. We know that studies can be biased and flawed right from their conception. That they can be commissioned for the sole purpose of showing a particular result.

We also know that there are systems like alternative medicine that work, which are not well supported by evidence. We have to accept personal evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence from others, because sometimes that's all there is. We build a picture of what is "likely to be so" from various pieces of evidence that we accept, which a scientist wouldn't.

And we have to be very, very careful because we are always venturing into realms of uncertainty when we do those things. If we accept anecdotal evidence, it can be wrong, even with the best of intentions or the most fervent belief. If we choose to accept evidence from non-mainstream sources, we also have to be aware that that evidence could be wrong too.

Whatever we do accept as truth, it needs to be questioned from time to time, and sometimes it's necessary to admit we were wrong. (BTW don't tell me to apply this to my "belief" in evolution.)

You might be surprised at what's been happening to me at the Creation vs. Evolution site. I've met people who do good, professional scientific work and who have the necessary skepticism to succeed in their chosen fields. However, many of them apply that skepticism to everything else in life. Arguing in the skeptic's way, as I've been arguing here, is sure to win debates with anyone who can't quote studies from the Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine. I've been pasted there for my views. And it's forced me to think. I've decided that pure skepticism is a boring and ultimately untruthful way of looking at the world. It assumes that we have power and control with science and studies when there is more to the world than that.

I have more in common with the creationists there. Surprised? Maybe you're surprised I know this?

The problem is that once you decide you'll accept various kinds of non-empirical evidence, you risk letting your judgement becoming very skewed, and you make yourself very vulnerable to people peddling things that sound plausible but aren't true. For example, a creationist who was actually supporting me in talking about vaccines and holistic medicine, is on another thread claiming that Barak Obama is a secret Muslim who has been planted in Illinois politics by Osama Bin Laden in order to become president and take over the US.

This is where I was getting when I asked in my previous post if we should just throw science out altogether and posit that the earth's core is made of ice cream, because no one can see it, or that dragons live under volcanoes. I could also tell you that I saw evolution happening because I was there. I am 3.5 billion years old. Don't believe me? Why? Maybe because some part of you still retains some skepticism; it's just a matter of how you choose to apply it.

My inner skeptic says that evolution explains the evidence very well. Maybe if I wanted to believe that the Bible were fact I would suspend my skepticism. That's obviously what a lot of people choose to do. I suppose they will have to decide if and when they are ready to put their inner skeptics back into operation. However, it doesn't hurt to attempt to give people a good scientific education for a start, so that they are aware of what the evidence for evolution actually is.