[Scattered]

>Evolution is an attempt to explain the development and existence of life.
Is not God said most emphatically to be life?
>Christianity, religion in general, does not make such a scientific attempt.
Yes, but is that not what people seek in religion.
>Using science to investigate God is like using science to
>investigate the life of character from your favorite novel.
That is assuming that God is a a fictional character like one from a novel. A true scientist will not make such an unsupported assumption.
>Science is a tool that doesn't fit that bolt.
I think I'm the first one to find the proper size scientific wrench to unscrew the unscrewtable.
>The only thing science can do for us, from a religious perspective,
>is to further condemn the silliest of religious beliefs - like duality.
Ha Ha. I wrote a paper on duality for phiolosophy that my instructor liked. I finally had gotten tired enough to write anything.
What surprised me was to show that the silliest religious belief (well, Christianity at least) is very well supported by science if you just add up a few facts and squeeze real hard. What would I calculate the probability? Somewhere between 20% to 90%.
Besides, without any God, religion is an expression of humanity's greatest aspirations. I would expect we will have to use science to achieve those that we can attain.
Note that though that I can use science to describe a God very very like the one described by Christianity, there is one difference. No one has ever seriously attempted to describe God without a big parcel of MetaPhysics. I can do it with only science. I haven't found anyone really ready for that. Test yourself. Who was more evil, Hitler or Stalin? If you can answer that without prejudice, maybe you could stretch to understand God.