You may be surprised to find, SoSick, that I agree with you here about what materialistic science currently fails to understand. Reductionist thinking on consciousness says that you can boil it down to DNA, nerve impulses, atoms -- you'll find the answer as long as you keep dissecting. I think this misses the point completely.

But not all scientists think this way, and I don't think it's impossible for science to gain more of an understanding about these more mystical-seeming topics. Bruce Lipton and Rupert Sheldrake are two scientists whose books I've been reading, who are interested in scientifically investigating consciousness and energy medicine.

There are some realms where I think science may never adequately be able to venture, such as spiritual revelation, and yes there are many scientists who believe dogmatically that science should be able to explain everything; and if science can't explain it, it's false/fantasy/wishful thinking etc.

However, linking back to evolution -- how does any of this negate the evidence for that? We're still looking at a fossil record which has been sorted in a precise order all around the world, for example. It's entirely possible not to be a materialist, and also to accept that there is a lot of evidence that evolution occurred. In fact it's exciting to wonder about some of the ways it might have happened from a non-materialist/reductionist point of view.