So how do you explain something that is supported by some scientific observation but not by other such observation?  A friend of mine has had a series of pneumathorax's over the past 6 or 7 months, and was due to have the two layers stuck together using 'powder glue' (I think that was the name it's given) later this month.

2 weeks ago, he was hit by a further breathing problem and admitted to hospital, where they found that this was something totally unrelated to the pneumathorax issue (different side of the chest for a start!).  There was damage visible on the scans, so last week they opened him up to repair it, only to find nothing there.  I know that some will say that there was probably some problem with the scan, but as there were more than one taken from different angles, this seems less likely.  How do you fit the two 'scientific observations' into your system that is based so heavily on the truth of  scientific observation?

There's nothing in anything I've written that suggests that science can't get it wrong. I am simply saying that where repeatable observations of the world we live in give us all we need to understand the mechanism by which something functions, then it's more reasonable to propose that the mechanism by which things work is down to those scientifically observable facts than it is to propose a separate mechanism not based upon any repeatable and observable fact.

So for instance if I see someone pedalling a bike, then it is more reasonable to propose that the back wheel is going rond because they are pushing the pedals than it is to propose that a group of invisible fairies are pushing it round.  In  the one case I can see what's ogically happening and can propose a mechanism from what everybody can see, in the other case I have no logical reason to propose the existence of invisible faries. It doesn't mean that I can prove that the faries don't exist, they might!  But there is no more reason to believe they do than there is to believe that the plants in my garden climb out of the flowerbeds and dance around the garden when everyone's asleep.

I also notice that you have failed to answer my question about the role of our relationship with God in all this?  Is this because it doesn't fit with your scientific POV?

Our relationship with God? What do you mean by that?  For me, God is Love, so you'd be asking about the role of loving relationships, which are a function of the brain, albeit a beautiful one.