Hey Anand, million thanks for this link, fantastic this Mano Singham, wonder what his full name is.
... but the onus of proving it is on science as the believers don't have the tools to prove them.
Under this standard any belief however outlandish will have to be given a pass. Science does not work that way. The onus of proof is on those who propose a theory. You prove it to the satisfaction of your skeptical peers, then it gets accepted. If you don't have the tools, develop them. If you are not able to, then that is just too bad, but not a problem for other scientists who are busy trying to prove what they are interested in.
All they have is their faith.
Anand, please allow me to quote from the blog post you cited.
Mencken said of Bryan's religious beliefs, ...... What should be a civilized man's attitude toward such superstitions? It seems to me that the only attitude possible to him is one of contempt. If he admits that they have any intellectual dignity whatever, he admits that he himself has none. If he pretends to a respect for those who believe in them, he pretends falsely, and sinks almost to their level. When he is challenged he must answer honestly, regardless of tender feelings.
While Mencken's use of the word "contempt" is perhaps too harsh, he makes a valid point: that no beliefs should be exempt from scrutiny simply because many people have held them for a long time. It is time to remove the veil that has protected religious beliefs for so long. After all, if we concede without argument that mainstream religious beliefs are compatible with science, how can we argue that witchcraft and astrology are not?
Cheers, and once again, thanks Anand for introducing me to Mano