Kurtz v. Religious Skepticism

Kurtz believes skepticism should be applied to religion just as it is with science or any other issue. He argues, rightly so I believe, that religion should be able to stand up to the same "inquiry" as anything else. His correlation with inquiry and science highlights a very valid argument. Empirical evidence has shown us that science, after years of research and inquiry, has evolved and grown to disprove many theory's and facts that we have in the past believed to be true. At one time no one believed in the atom much less that we would be able to study it. The Hubble telescope has shown us the outermost edges of the universe that we could never have believe possible. A relatively recent development in M.R.I.'s (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) has allowed physicians to actually map the brain and watch (real time) brain function during surgery ( http://www.fmri.org ).
Another valid point as to why religion must stand up to inquiry and doubt is the fact, like science, it is constantly changing. For example, lets take the Pope (I was a catholic for a short time). We were taught his word(s) were the words of God. Females were required to wear head coverings (yes, I remember that) because of a verse in the bible and because the Pope said so. A couple of Pope's ago decided it was no longer necessary. Does that mean that God changes his mind as to what is and isn't right. Their recent announcement that cremation was OK would have thought to have been blasphemy 20 years ago.