You are wrong. You aren't even debatable. Science and religion are orthogonal.
REP: True
Science is empiricism - mathematical modeling of observation constrained by real world correspondence.
REP: Not true.Science as a whole does not depend upon Maths.It uses Maths where ever required and it tries to reduce reality to a possible Matehmatical Model. Model need not be accurate.
Model tries to explain what is observed and makes some sensible prediction. Sometimes it succeeds exceptionally and sometimes it fails miserably.
Science must be predictive and verifiable.
REP: Prediction today is driven by probability.
The concept verifications are subjected to the assumptions of statistics(which is maths) and the defined event space. There are ways to deduce results without using probability or statistics.
A theory cannot be proven, only validated by prediction vs. observation. A theory that makes a bad prediction is falsified - wrong and dead.
One blooper and out.
REP: A wrong theory is still in use. No one tries to derive the exact solution to a problem.
For various reasons it is not possible to solve a real life problem with enough entropy with enough precision using exact Maths.Abstraction is central to the working of this world.And then you have n body problems.
Consider: If you seek "scientific proof of God's existence and power", what would you need as that proof.
That is a statement of profound ignorance. By definition, religion cannot be proven. If it were proven faith would be destroyed and it would no longer be religion.
REP: Religion can not be proven to anyone else but yourself. It is your belief and it can be a positive belief.Better than the faith in Hydrogen Bomb.
Religion is faith - irrational (by definition!) belief that exists independent of observation.
1) That which supports religion supports religion.
REP: This applies to every field as the base assumptions of a subject can not be verified by some other domain.
2) That which ignores religion supports religion.
REP: Unfortunately many today do not understand it and such a support is not religious.
But it happens every where.
3) That which contradicts religion supports religion - test of faith; act of the Devil.
REP: Contradiction is allowed in Science.
Otherwise how can Matter and Wave co-exist.
Either you define same reality using the harcoded physicality or using the wave but not both.
4) Anybody who criticizes is thereby proven unfit to judge, or is an agent of the Devil.
REP: Criticize after you have understood what is meant by God. Seek advice from other religions as well.
All they want is your money. Toss in self-serving exercise of political power and impression of unending travail as proof of of God's love - test of faith! Proof of the Devil.
REP:Yes it is politically sensitive but so is the bomb.
The divide is irreconcilable. Science is the discovery of knowledge and its employment to change the world for the better. Religion has one uniform, ultimate sin: Knowledge!
REP: Not true. It has its own book of Knowledge.
The Sceince(as we know) can not claim to be sole owner of it otherwise we would not have evolved into human beings.
Faith demands denial of reality. Faith falters when suffering is relieved.
REP: Not true. There are religions which believe in both. Hinduism enforces reality without denying God.
Science puts you in jumbo jets. Faith puts you onto your bloody knees. Make a choice. How many dead babies do you want to bury? (not uphill of your drinking wells, ditto latrines, unless you are particularly eager for more tests of faith.)
REP: Faith helps you after you die.
There is an anthill outside my home. Every Thursday the ants gather to worship me. They all chew off the end of one of their legs to show their sincerity. They know that if they truly please me I will give them a giant Tim Horton's donut and they will never be hungry again. I hose them full blast to smash the nuisance into mud and ruin. They always return.
REP: You feed or they eat.But they must exist.
It is simple.
Test of faith.
REP: True.