What does Religion expect from modern Science?

‘ QT . . . ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ’.
/ ‘ Quantum theory’ by John Polkinghorne /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
#
So, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the knowledge
of Nature on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
==== .
Socratus.

John Polkinghorne and his book ‘ Quantum theory’.
=== .
I like to read his books because they raise many questions.
And these questions give information for brain to think.
John Polkinghorne took epigraph of his book ‘ Quantum theory’
the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ‘
Why?
Because, he wrote:
‘ ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ’.
/ preface/
‘ Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute’
/ page 40/
‘ If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises’
/ page 87 /
‘ Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .’
/ page 88 /
‘Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .’
/ page92 /
‘ Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .’
/ page 92 /

Togetherness.
John Polkinghorne, as a realist, want to know
‘ what the physical world is actually like’, but until now
physicists don’t have the whole picture of Universe.
And in my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand the problems of creating the Universe:
‘ They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ’.
=== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.

I can't speak for all people of all religions, but I expect it to stay science: a tool for study, and refrain from becoming a religion unto itself: a statement of belief.

I have to laugh when I see someone on here state with perfect sincerity that they believe more in science than in religion. To believe in science is to turn it into a religion.

No matter how far science progresses, there will always be unknowable things. To believe that science will figure everything out someday is also to turn it into a religion. Science deals in hard facts, things that are knowable and quantifiable. It can ask questions about what it doesn't know. It can study what it doesn't know. It adds to knowledge every day. But it doesn't deal in belief. In fact, belief can hamper the process of doing good science, because it can lead you to skew your results to fit your beliefs.

No matter how far science progresses, it doesn't deal with why or with meaning. It isn't set up to do that. You cannot do more than speculate about why something happens, except in the case of something hard and fast like chemical attractions or things of that nature. There is much speculation and political agenda that passes for science, but that doesn't stand up to scrutiny under the rules of science.

Let science be science and let God be God.