I think you're proposing two things here aren't you?
1. That absence of proof shouldn't be taken as proof of absence - which is well worth discussing, and
2. That the Truth is being deliberately ignored or supressed by science - which from my point of view is simply not believable (OK, sometimes, drug companies, oil companies etc) given that there are millions of scientists but none of them breaks rank and admits they're part of a vast centuries old international conspiracy. It's a bit like saying men never went to the moon. If they hadn't, it would have leaked out.
So it might be more interesting from my point of view if we could stick with number 1
|