poetry and linguistic weaving

That sums it up well. Many here say they want to see science broaden its approach, but what they really mean, or what the effect would be to give up good parts of it. The quote from the Dalai Lama shows beautifully a very deep lack of understanding what the good reasons for science's narrow approach are. If we weaken the rules what makes a convincing case or not we loose much of the power from the scientific approach with a very doubtful gain.

A nice 'poetic' trick made me smile: For creation to exist; there MUST be a Creator:
To use the word 'creation' instead of a more neutral term like kosmos lead to this spurious argument.

By the way: If the evidence for seemingly paranormal acts or demonstrations would be as clear as some of you like to think, there would be not the slightest need for broadening the approach of science. Demonstrations which really would be so impressive as those cited would make scientists quickly change their minds even without a good theory how it happens. In reality, when for instance scientists gather a bit of what one of those Brazilian 'doctors' gets out of the body of a patient, it turns out to be chicken intestines.

As long as the case is not clearer there is no need for a change of theories. You seem to plead for changing theories without any good reason. No reason to discuss unicorn DNA without better proof of its existence. Scientists love to change their theories (Einstein, etc) but not with a compelling reason.

Wolfgang