That is because there is no room for religion in science. Science, by definition is the study of how the universe works when there is no divine intervention. If there is divine intervention, then it is theology, not science.
So9
Not true at all, science seeks to discover what is - regardless of its origin. Further, science tries to discover the laws of nature. If God did not write those laws - then who did? Inanimate matter?
I may agree with you, depending on how you define "religion". I don't believe Genesis should replace a science textbook. The Word of God supercedes science. However, the scientific method should allow one to test the theory that the universe was designed. Galileo used a similar concept to seek order in the planetary bodies, thus eventually learning that the earth revolved around the sun.
Suppose for the purpose of this argument that God really exists. He's not just someone's belief system. He really exists. And assume God created us. The purpose of science is to discover reality. That reality may well involve God.
Could "science" uncover the truth of that reality, if it automatically precludes evidence that suggests a purposefully ordered universe?
I recently heard about a Chinese scientist who was not permitted to discuss a weakness in Darwin's theopry at an American Scintific convention. He said something like, "In China we can criticise Darwin, but not the government. In American we can criticise the government, but not Darwin." Darwin proposed a scientific theory, but his followers are the ones who have turned it into a religion.