It’s perfectly natural to prefer simplistic claims and cherry pick evidence to support them - but history suggests that in the long run humanity seems to prefer a more objective knowledge.

I don’t think I’ve ever said “science has no role” in morality (who are you quoting?). I think science informs the moral discussion along with various other disciplines, and, of course, should always have a voice.

Having said that, the way that science contributes to the conversation is different than the other disciplines. Science makes no value judgments, so in terms of rights, worth, meaning, and moral determinations, its contribution is somewhat like a scope on a rifle - it helps you see what you’re aiming at with greater detail; which is immensely and crucially helpful at times.

My point has always been that religion has no special role in deciding what is right and wrong. (It has, in fact, in the past been a repository for moral views but I think there are wider avenues for that now. And I think many people feel religion has discredited itself in this area).

However, when a discipline argues for a special role in this, or any other, area it should do so on its own merits - not by knocking down a straw man (”science has no role”) and then claiming the role for itself as the only other alternative. This is just like Dembski’s ‘design filter’ (which I notice Craig also using in his ‘fine tuning’ argument).

But in practice we don’t.

Don’t we? (knowingly or not?)

(And let’s face it - the argument here has been for denying a role for one of these disciplines).

Well, that’s not what I’m arguing for… (though in the past, you yourself have seemed rather happy with ‘religion’ [again, not a word I particularly like] being denied a role - or at least severely downplaying its role?)