Logical debate on matters of faith is a fallacy. It is a basic fact of logic that should be covered early in any logic book.

A religion, informally, is
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
(source)

I am going to avoid the word "scientist" to refer to those who place faith in science rather than religion, as in many cases the fanatical take this belief far enough they are willing to violate the principles of science to support their claims. I don't know what to call them but for now I'll just use the phrase "supporters of x theory".

By this definition, we see that science is itself a religion in which one must place faith. Science does insist upon finding provable and repeatable proof behind that which it believes, but in many cases it accepts evidence that is not necessarily as sound as others.

For example, the theories of creation of the universe in both Chrisitanity and the big bang theory are strikingly similar. For simplicity, I will use the term "creation" and its variants in both its creationism sense (spontaneous generation) and the evolutionary sense (existence of a new species through mutation). Both propose the universe was created from some fundamental pieces, and that only via a specific order of events could life be created. Both have a flaw in their logic that requires the believer to make a leap of faith.

For the creationist, one must believe in the existence of God. For the big bang supporter, one must resolve the origin of the matter that caused the big bang.

We have not found evidence to support or deny the existence of a diety. We have not found evidence to explain the origin of the initial matter that fueled the big bang. However, many people place their faith in these theories because, in their eyes, there is enough evidence to overpower the lack of logical, rational evidence.

I understand the fear of indoctrination that athiests hold; as a child I was strongly warned I would be subjected to athiest indoctrination while in college. But understand that science is not a subject that interests the common man to the degree it interests the scientist. Does it matter to my life if I think plants operate by magic or if I understand how the cellular respiration for plants is done? Is the origin of the universe useful to my quest for adequate income to sustain my life?

Please do not discredit all of Christianity because some are content with the knowledge man has already obtained. I am a Christian and I fully support the endeavors of science, even into fields that could possibly discredit my religion. For if I am wrong in my choice of faith, surely I would like to be informed. Keep in mind that many of the world's first scientists were monks. Also keep in mind that at the times when scientists were persecuted for ideas that radically threatened religious beliefs, the clergy held as much (if not more) power than the governments that ruled them.

The enemy is not any system of belief; the enemy is the lust for power that leads men to attack anything that shakes their views of life. The terrorist groups that attack us have very different views of Islamic faith than the majority of the Muslim world. The Westboro Baptist Church stands in favor of views that are radically perpendicular to Baptist doctrine. Galileo was not persecuted by the church alone, but also by defenders of Aristotle's geocentrism. I would be willing to support the idea that in all cases where a religious entity persecuted and crushed a scientific theory, the religious entity had at the very least equal authority to the government of the environment.

No religion is guiltless. In any environment where men gain power based on subscription to a belief, there will be harsh opposition to a new belief that threatens the position of those in power. You'd do well to examine the path you tread, Beldaran. Perhaps the man with the closed mind is you?

I'll close with an interesting observation by a brilliant man, Albert Einstein:
science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.
He believed that science and religion were markedly different yet had complex relationships that were inseperable, and I believe this is the most enlightened stance to take on the whole "religion vs. religion" debate we see here.