In essence, science is not interested in the question of a god. There has never been a credible scientistic theory of their being a god(s) or indeed a creator. Therefore, science has never had any impetus on disproving it. The onus is not with scientists but with the religious. The same is true with the concept of a 'soul'. Choosing to believe something - anything - that makes you feel good, does not make it true.

Science is concerned with reason and not faith or philosophy. The questions 'how' and 'what' are important and not the 'why'.

Evolution by natural selction is no longer a theory but can now be accepted as fact. There is so much overwhelming evidence - scientific evidence - that it has ceased to be mere theory. It is arguably the most tested and validated 'theory' in science.

The fact that religion uses science is only too understandable. In the case of evolution even the Catholic Church has conceded for it to be so (though it might not promulgate it, yet). It has now become important to find ways in which to include it into the doctrine. This does not in any way mean that they are compatible but only that one uses the other. In this case, the church using science. One might argue rather cynically that a church that claims has all the answers in important matters has now had to adopt reason .

Therefore, this ceases to be of any interest scientifically, and only remains so philosophically (barely).

By the way, I would bring forth the following as the basis for Christianity (rather than the ones you have suggested):

1. the immaculate conception
2. the resurrection
3. some form of atonement

If you disregard any of these three (there may be others perhaps slightly less important) you would not be able to say that you are a Christian with a straight face.

Quid