The real debate is not over science, which is concerned with the observable, but over whose underlying metaphysical view one accepts: materialism vs. some form of theism. The problem is that those on the Darwinism side of the debate refuse to see or studiously ignore the fact that the natural sciences do not contain all possible knowledge.
Science has never claimed to be the oracle of all possible knowledge. To make such a statement underscores your own ignorance of scientists. Do you actually know, in person or on line, any scientists? Any scientist who claimed science was such an oracle, would never pass his or her dissertaion exam.
Your ignorance is astonishing. Many, and perhaps most, of those on the "Darwinism side" are religious. Here, let's try a prediction based on your theory: if you poll the "Darwinist" posters here at FR, then, if you are right, none of them should be religious. Try it and let us know the results.
The *majority* of Americans who accept evolution are Christians. Sorry if that shatters your simpleminded presumption.
Yeah. We all know that evilutionists never read fiction or philosophy, recite a poem, play or listen to music, learn a recipe, love a woman, ride a horse, repair a car, or do anything at all requiring, involving or acknowledging knowledge or knowhow outside of the natural sciences. They are, to a man, unidimensional automatons of soulless science!
(Do I really need sarcasm tags?)
Your statement is absolutely false. The first things one learns on the road to being a scientist are the limitations of science. I don't know what field you're in but you need to learn accurately about science before you spout off so cavalierly.
Backed up by Darwin, himself:
"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." --- Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838