You forgot to address this issue, concerning one of your own.....
Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard. "Our willingness," confessed Lewontin, "to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism ... materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."
You forgot to address any issue.
I don't agree with the esteemed straw man from Harvard that the constructions of science are absurd, or that the claims and promises are extravagant, or that the scientific community has toleration for the unsubstantiated.
The constructions are based upon natural and quantifiable phenomenon. And they enable one to better observe and predict the universe. This is hardly absurd.
The claims and promises of science have led to modern medicine, understanding of Molecular Biology, getting man on the moon, improving food crops, and the elimination of small pox. I don't know who claimed that science would do better, but they must have wanted grant money.
Scientists test claims, therefore that which is unsubstantiated isn't science. It is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
Now compare that with the constructions of theology (such as the Trinity which Thomas Jefferson rejected as absurd), the claims and promises of religions (promise them everything, but only after they die and only is some far off land of make believe), and the toleration (and often enforcement) of totally unsubstantiated dogma.