This article appears to be bent on buttressing an anti-scientific religious viewpoint rather than improving science. (Read the last few paragraphs.) The conclusion strikes the same themes that I've seen many times in the religious anti-science movement: science is a religion, a cult, etc.

Sure, statistics are difficult and can lead to incorrect conclusions, but that's why we make sure that a scientific claim is falsifiable. The fact that we can test the claims are where much of the power lies. Let's not forget that a few centuries of the scientific method have made human lives so much better than millennia of religion.