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.
First is the idea that nonbelievers will naturally be more inclined to immorality, or that society can't exist without a "scaffold of morality that is constructed of faith and held together by religion." This is empirically disproved by the examples of nations like Denmark and Sweden where the majority of the nation is secular and they enjoy more stability than most religious nations, including America.
Second is the idea that it's valid to build a moral code around fiction. If there is no God, any theistic moral code is simply an arbitrary construct built around a convenient concept. There's no guarantee that this kind of moral code will provide good moral standards - just a moral standard. Why not just excise the good moral concepts from the supernatural nonsense and the hordes of bad moral concepts (e.g., stoning homosexuals, enslaving foreigners, killing purported witches, etc.)? Not to mention that such a system, based on fiction, would be without grounds to say that dishonesty is immoral, seeing how it would require massive amounts of dishonesty just to assert an absolute source for the moral code.
Third, there is no real-world benefit that a religious moral system can provide that a secular one can't. None. However, there are many damaging things that organized religions have promoted that couldn't be justified by a secular system. The indoctrination of children with incredible amounts of false information, for example, or religiously-motivated bigotry, or holy wars, or any number of other things that spring quickly to mind. Fourth, you seem to be implying that the solution to intellectual laziness is dishonesty. If people aren't willing to think things through, you're saying it's better to lie to them about the reason something is right or wrong than to give them a reason to think about it. A moral system based on organized religion, when there is no god, is simply an arbitrary set of rules. Many of these rules would necessarily involve performing the will of a nonexistent being, and lying to the people who are too intellectually lazy to think things through. There are no benefits to such a system that couldn't be gained without the lies.