Anyone can claim that is the best in something. Specially if this person is the one who gets to define what the "best" is. If the concept of intellectual superiority regarding lines of thought and knowledge is defined by "me", for instance, and I call myself the "smartest", there isn't much neutral discussion to be had with me. Any assertion against my conclusion will be promptly ignored, without any further consideration. That is bias. A very subtle type of bias, but still. The fact that I consider myself the smartest in this scenario, does not change the fact that I made, make and will make mistakes, because of my imperfect condition.

We argue about what to argue, how to argue, the topic itself and many other things, even among scientists there isn't much of an agreement on everything. I never said it's a bad thing. Debate, when it's featured by respect coming from both sides, leads to enlightenment. But again, best in and on itself does not mean perfect and that's my point. If science is not perfect it cannot refer to itself as if all of its definition are unbiased - imperfection that comes from humans - or simply the truth, regardless of personal belief.

I consider myself a reasonable person. When I'm sick, I go to the doctors. I look for a mechanic when my car breaks and I enjoy reading about astronomy, physics, mathematics. I respect science. I understand that it's results are good. But that's what they are to me: good. Not perfect. Simply put, the source of science, human thinking is fallible - and very much so according to our history.

I even studied Evolution and many other things that went against my beliefs and hopes solely so I could try and better understand it. Certainly I need many more questions from it to be answered than I need now from my beliefs, because I have them for a long time. My beliefs have brought me happiness and hope. Science puts depression and loneliness on the table. I understand that it's pure intellectual inference and not intended to be taken as emotionally distressful, but I will think about it much harder because of that, since it's outcome is the most horrifying thing I can think of: I am nothing.

This comment was just to say that the scientific community would get much more people to listen - even the fanatic ones - if they weren't consistently patronizing and disrespectful, specially considering the fact that scientific explanation, sometimes are much more difficult to understand and therefore accept than any other. It's much easier to believe that an intelligent being created everything instead of everything coming out of nothing. From an evolutionist perspective, this should be taken in a more teacher-to-student ("it works like this...") dynamics and not parent-to-child ("That's the truth and anyone who doesn't believe it is stupid").

I reckon that a concept of religious people being all bigots, racists and illiterate fanatics is what tends to make many smart people generally assume that any Christian, Muslim or religious person thinks the exact same way. That's like a religious person arguing that a Computer Scientist is wrong because Macroevolution was never observed. Religions people don't make it easy, I know. And there is much more of those on the world. Vox Populi is not Vox Dei.

I just wished to be heard, before being put on a often pejorative label of Christian and defined as something I am not. The, I would be really glad to discuss other methods, the scientific method and other philosophically important issues.