Science has radically altered how we understand the universe, so theism must grapple with the implications of science before offering prescientific beliefs as truth.
First off, let's discuss definitions of various terms here. I'm not claiming that these are the best or dictionary definitions, but it seems these are commonly agreed upon definitions. If you disagree with these definitions I'd be open to hearing alternatives.
Science -- the methodical study of the physical/natural universe.
Radically altered -- completely changed.
Universe -- the totality of physically existent things.
Grapple with the implications -- consider and think about with relation to meaning.
Prescientific beliefs -- (honestly I'm not certain here, but I assume) metaphysical statements.
Truth -- that which best coherently explains and correlates with reality.
Given these definitions I find it curious why this would even be a problem. Science deals with the physical nature of the universe, religion/Christianity deals with the metaphysical and sources of what it means to exist. I think the original assumption is that science has somehow proven that God doesn't exist or at least that God doesn't need to exist. I do not agree with the concept of NOMA, (Non-Overlapping MAgesteria) but in a sense the two are on a one-way street. Science is concerned with what is happening or from what cause something happens, but it is limited to physical universe. Science cannot get to a deeper meaning of existence. Science cannot give why there is anything at all instead of nothingness. Maybe, but honestly I'm not holding my breath, science will someday give us how the universe came into existence, but even then it still doesn't say why. To try to apply purely scientific views to morality, consciousness, deeper meaning etc. only leads to disastrous results. Pure logic says that one must torture the innocent if it will bring about something good. Applying mathematic principles to life leads to devastating consequences. As portrayed in the popular movie, Watchmen the hero/villain Adrian Veidt is perfectly justified in killing millions in order to potentially save billions of people. Also, in V for Vendetta the government is perfectly justified at rounding up innocent people to do scientific experiments on them. As I insinuated before any number of thought experiments seem to easily slip into absurdity. Say you somehow could save one person by the torture of another, innocent, unrelated person. Under strict utility, you have to weigh things that are totally unrelated to their value as human beings. In a strict utilitarian view the idea of inalienable rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) is foreign. You do not have a right to life if somehow your death brings about some good.
So, the study of the physical universe has greatly altered our lives including how and what are able to do, but it has had no impact on the meaning of life. Just consider what I'm doing right now. I'm typing out my thoughts on a laptop computer that is able to connect wirelessly at great speed to the largest collections of facts ever compiled. It can process information at a speed faster than what used to take up several rooms of computing devices. This isn't even all that amazing of a machine either. Even small electronic devices can carry thousands of books. We can nearly instantaneously communicate visually even at great distances. We've landed on the moon. We've sent probes deep into outer space. But, all of this wonderful progress doesn't bring any deeper meaning or better moral value (whatever that may mean).
So far I've been bringing out the point that science doesn't bring meaning or really better people, only better convenience to living. But what about the implication that religion is trying to control or denigrate science and scientific progress? Why is this such a common theme? I've actually written about this a couple times here and here. Science actually only makes sense in the context of belief in God. If everything is the result of random chance (under a strict materialist view), why would one expect any semblance of order to nature? How can we perform scientific tests without first assuming that things won't randomly change? Materialists won't admit it, but the consistency in nature is a presupposition smuggled in from the Christian/theistic view of the universe. These "prescientific" beliefs actually guide science to be better, not just by giving science moral guidelines within which to work (think Nazi science experiments), but by giving it a foundation from which to spring. If everything is random, then the scientific method itself will never work, because there's no reason why we should expect our testing and hypothesizing to be consistent in a framework of randomness. Science, in the proper context is not lessened by believing that God created (creates) the natural universe, it a deepened understanding of the creator. Indeed science is a form of worship, studying to know the Creator better by studying the creation.
Truth ... As Pilate so famously asked of Jesus, "What is truth?" (John 18:38), presumably not knowing that Jesus had already given the answer, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me (John 14:6)." If you're trying to get to the truth of things, there is only one source of truth revealed to humanity in various ways. Science certainly is a wonderful study and can teach us much about God, but God has also revealed much of Himself through the person and work of Jesus Christ (John 1:18). There is no reason to expect science to "find God," or truth about God, but I'd say the reason some scientists can't find God is they are looking at the trees and missing the forest. Big Bang theory also points to a creator. The awesome intricacies of biological life, particularly the information found in genes, also points to God. Also, based on a video I watched recently about quantum theory it seems that one of the conclusions we can come to is that quantum mechanics actually indicates that God is the reason for the universe. So, science has proven God, just not in the way dogmatic materialist scientists will accept.
