Perhaps you have seen Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", there is shown the
war between Creationism and Evolution.
Let me find the reason for this war.
1. Science does not deal with God, this is the definition of the word Science: Scientists follow closely the methods of Science, the main and most old of which is
Methodological Naturalism.
2. If God exists, then He
influences nature, at least at the moment of its creation.
3. Science deals with absolutely all nature.
Items 1,2,3 give the
conclusion that "there is no God" according to Science. This means that Science is not right (Science has sinned) before God. Because God knows that God exists.
Here is the
proof of the spiritual world, and the essence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy; and by clicking on the author's name, we find other works: proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis and the ABC and Goldbach conjectures:
Simulation Hypothesis and Dark Matter, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2103.0133
"For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict." Luke 21:15.
But all the
top journals refused to publish any of the manuscripts without explaining journal motives and reasons. Why? Because my name is very well known on Google. I have a lot of religious articles online. Conclusion: I suffered for my faith in Jesus Christ.
What is more important than the proof of the Riemann hypothesis? Faith of the author. Only religiously passive authors are accepted for publication. Only authors who do not offend the devil or his world order are accepted: "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 17:14.
In centuries past, gender (and skin color) has determined whether the TRUE proof of the Riemann Hypothesis will be published. Now it is the religion: an atheist author or not.
The satan is the evil spirit, thus, satan is the hatred itself. The pure hatred, the absolute evil, without any sign of love: "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." John 15:25.
Science requires objective evidence, and that simply is not to be found on this?!
"neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead" Luke 16:31,"When they saw Him, they worshiped Him, but some doubted." Matthew 28:17.
Not everyone is Catholic. Recently the Catholic church (Vatican) moved
boy-raping priests so they could rape more little boys, and currently the Vatican is declaring
bankruptcy to hide its expensive graven images and
billions of dollars of mammon so that it
doesn't have to pay reparations to the little boys that it harmed (not to mention sending the souls of priests to hell). The Catholic church
leans on families of raped little boys not to alert authorities or let others know about the scandals.
So, perhaps the
Catholic church isn't the best source of religious advice. Yet, the pope (and other priests) are (and past ones were) highly educated in divinity or theology.
It has been the considered
opinion of a couple of recent popes that DNA is real and that evolution is real. Yet, they claim that God had a hand in creating the DNA system and guiding evolution. Thus, a couple of
recent popes believe in methodological naturalism, as well, but they insist that God guides it.
Courts use DNA evidence. It is sufficiently proven and sufficiently accurate, that it cannot be refuted.
DNA clearly proves evolution.
To deny evolution, in the face of DNA evidence, is pure lying. God doesn't like liars.
The
COVID virus is mutating, as we speak. Past flu viruses mutated, and that required more vaccines to prevent mutations of the evolving viruses.
Mutation is evolution. So, evolution is all around us, and vastly affecting our lives.
Theists tell lies about Global Warming, and their politicians get their lawyers to rewrite national environmental reports (as happened during the W. Bush administration, resulting in the resignation of the top woman in the government's environmental study). God doesn't like lies. God doesn't like his environment getting ruined (even if people will rapture to heaven leaving behind a toxic cess pool where once God's glorious environment once stood).
Theists can still teach religion in churches. Some are open only on Sunday, but they can open any day, and hold classes after schools teach science. Kids can still pray to God in school, if they pray silently to themselves. There is no need to lead school prayer and force different religions to worship as we do (there is freedom of religion in America).
Science, right now, is in the process of once again saving us. They developed vaccines.
You wrote: "2. If God exists, then He influences nature, at least at the moment of its creation."
In your mind God created life. But that is actually
two beliefs. It is the belief in God (that God exists), and it is the belief that God created life (or nature). Couldn't God exist and have had nothing at all to do with the creation of life (or nature)?
You assert that "God knows that God exists." In your mind, God is all knowing. What if God is not all knowing?
What if God doesn't even know that God exists? Self-awareness is a feature of sentient life, who who says that God is sentient?
You wrote: "Items 1,2,3 give the conclusion that "there is no God" according to Science." Science doesn't assert that there is no God. Science won't accept the existence of God (or Fred Flintstone, or the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus) without proof.
The fact that they don't accept doesn't mean that they proved non-existence. The fact that they don't accept doesn't mean that they are trying to assert that God doesn't exist. Science is not the enemy of religion. Science merely tries to prove the provable. You leapt to the conclusion that science asserts that there is no God, and science quite definitely does not make that assertion.
Many well known scientists have been theists. Enrico Fermi believed that it was the hand of God that moved subatomic particles.
You assert that "proof of the spiritual world, and the essence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy." In other words, if science is still studying a phenomena, you
leap to the conclusion that science doesn't know everything, therefore God exists. Of course science doesn't know everything. That's why scientists still study science. That's why probes are still sent to Mars. That's why bio labs still study biology. Though science doesn't yet have all of the answers, you can see, in the past 300 years, that science has made great strides. Internet phones were not possible 300 years ago. Nor were airplanes. Does this mean that science is wrong because it doesn't currently have all of the answers? I think not. . . rather, it means that
science is very quickly catching up and learning answers. . . answers that can be applied to every day living (like curing COVID, or giving us high definition TV).
The pope didn't believe that God would protect the Vatican, so the pope cut off travel to the Vatican. So, even the pope is showing lack of faith.
You assert that: top journals
refused to publish any of the manuscripts without explaining journal motives and reasons. Why? Because my name is very well known on Google. I don't want to insult you, but your logic is skewed, and you seem to take rejection as a personal attack. They are
not out to get you personally. Your wild leaps of logic are not consistent with scientific procedures. For example, you asserted that science doesn't know everything, therefore God must exist. You
try to make it look scientific, by throwing in terms (like Goldbach Conjecture), but those terms have nothing to do with proving your assertions.
You assert that
"satan is the hatred itself" and you quote John "they
hate me without cause." Prestigious journals don't publish a lot of works by legitimate scientists (those who have worked for a decade in college to get their degrees, and those who worked in the field of science for more decades). You are not published because Satan is out to get you.
People are not out to get you or block you from getting published because they hate you. Its just that your writing shows
no background in science. It shows
no proof that others would accept as proof.
Though you leap to wild conclusions about proving God through an absence of knowledge, and you throw in a few scientific term to baffle non-scientists, real scientists see right through your rhetoric and refuse to respect it. 
