Sorry I'm kinda late on this thread but as a devout Catholic and a molecular biology major, I feel I really see both sides of this.
As a scientist, my job is to look at data and evidence empirically and draw hypotheses. After testing these hypotheses, I refine them into a conclusion. That is how the human mind has been conditioned to think Question>Data Analysis>Hypothesis>Test>More analysis>Conclusion. I'll talk about why this "Scientific Method" is important to religion in a bit.
Okay so first let me pose the question, "Are my religious beliefs true?"
So now I have some data from the Bible:
1) Jesus' life accurately follows 324 individually made (non-collaborative) Messianic Prophecies.
2) The Bible contains scientific statements thousands of years ahead of its time (Earth is round, Earth is not resting on a surface, hydrothermal ocean vents).
3) Several noncollaborative works (Gospels) chronicle Jesus' life accurately and consistantly.
We also have some pitfalls in the scientific theorems which create this perceived war between religion and science:
1a) What caused the Big Bang? What caused this event, then what caused that, what caused that.....what caused that?
We can question an infinite amount of times what caused the events leading up to the Universe's creation. As nothing has existed for an infinite amount of time, these infinite events did not have sufficient time to occur. Therefor the only logical solution to this question is a source of omniscience.
2a)
Evolutionism- My my my I could write paragraphs about this:
Basically (getting semantics out of the way) there are two types of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution is something no one can debate, microevolution is simply adaptation. If I take a culture of E Coli and pour ampicillin on it, 99% will die and any with a plasmid allowing ampicillin resistance live. Therefor the culture underwent microevolution.
Macroevolution is Species A becoming Species B. It has never been observed scientifically and is expected to occur via the compilation of countless microevolutionary events over time.
^ Evolution refers to these two terms collectively.
Evolutionism is the theory that speciation occurred by evolution. So now we have 4 distinct terms and I guarantee that 80% of the people on TW just doubled their knowledge of biology.
Now the reasons I disagree with evolutionism:
1b) Laws of evolution state Species A---> Species B because B is more fit than A to survive. Now this happens VERY VERY VERY slowly as it is the combination of countless microevolutionary changes. Now via the model of evolution species of reptiles became birds and their from arms slowly became wings over millions of years. My question to you: Wouldn't the intermediate species between the lizard and the bird be phased out as it could not walk swim or fly with half wing/ half arm limbs? It could not aqquire food nor escape predators.
2b) Cambrian Explosion- Basically, eukaryotic life just instantly appears in the fosile record.It would take a MASSIVE amount of time for the nearly infinite differences between prokarya and eukarya to develope. Where is this time in the fosile record? It certainly is not the two inch gap of sediment between cyanobacterium and mammals.
Now my personal hypothese given this data is that:
1) The authors of the Bible had some greater knowledge we do not, as they were able to independently write over 300 prophecies consistent with each other despite never speaking to one another nor reading each other's works (written in different languages over a 1500 year period and as each cronicles different parts of Jesus' life they would not have influenced each other).
2) Religious texts can be a partially accurate way to understand nature.
1a) Science is not a complete system and cannot fully explain some phenomenon.
2a) Modern evolutionism has serious pitfalls which cannot be explained without the existance of miracles and intelligent design.
Now I have my hypothesis that something greater than us (God) has been cognisantly active throughout our existance. These actions, coupled with sound scientific knowledge, accurately descirbe our Universe. Going back to 1) I feel Christianity has been chronicled and documented well enough for me to believe in it.
Now this next part is why I feel many people have trouble believing. I cannot experiment and test the existance of God. Therefor within the realm of Science I cannot "conclude" God exists. So I am stuck with my Theory of God, although it is based on a significant wealth of evidence.
...bear in mind we are also stuck with the Theory of Gravity, no experiment has yet to confirm its existance or its method of work, but I and everyone else believe in it.