Quote - i hate to alienate those whose "side" i'm on but i have to mention something about science.

science boosters tend to have the opinion that science is proving things and talk about what science knows.  they're pretty secure in this position.  i think this is an error.  science is not about what is known.  science is an admission that things are unknown, and that even today's comfortable "facts" will become yesterday's misinformation or disproven scientific theory.

after all, look at what happened to newtonian physics.  now regarded as close enough for government work at macro scales, but not really accurate.  remember the theory had been long held that life arouse spontaneously, until evolution came along.  and don't get me wrong, evolution sounds pretty solid to me, especially how it fits in to my own idea of the universe as stated above a bit.  but that doesn't mean another idea might not come along to disprove it.

there was the solar system, then the galaxy, then the universe, then string theory, then m theory, and there will be more.  there are lots of neat entirely alternative theories to the universe out there right now, like holographic theory, and the idea that we are a simulation within a device.

let's not even get into how the social and psychological sciences change continuously, always confident in their current realities, shaking their heads later at their mistakes.

religion gets comfortable in it's realities, yet it's realities change too.  religious folks (especially on the right) get to assert their certainty about it's ideas, based on text or custom or whatever they are using.  they have problems admitting at times that the belief they are backing currently was ever not the popular belief, or they may be of the opinion that earlier takes on religion were wrong, and just now they got it right. 

i like religion that talks more about mystery.  it seems ridiculous and arrogant for anyone, scientist or religious person, to state that they know the laws of the universe or what's wrong or right.  for the scientist, the universe is just to big for anyone to get it.  even all of us together in sync are not gonna get it.  for the religious person, you're talking about god here.  i'm pretty sure you don't know what he's thinking.  he's also at least the size of the universe.

I don't think that you are going to alienate anyone. You are right that scientific knowledge is largely about probabilities rather than certainties - though it can conclusively falsify empirical claims, which is perhaps where it has had its greatest impact on religion in the past and the experience of this has put paid to any thoughts of a God of the gaps. Perhaps if theologians would put forward a coherent concept of a God, that too might be subject to scientific falsification - but as yet, I've yet to see something coherent presented from monotheism and so with regards to the presented beliefs, I feel that I can be certain (being of the position that to entertain the posibility of square triangles existing would be to not understand the concepts). Of course, it would be a fool who denies any posibility that he is wrong but there are diferent kinds of doubt - doubt of myself is very different from doubting logic or scientific method.