Science vs. religion: why religion loses

I recently hit on the reason why the concept of evolution is so divisive. Theists who accept God as creator of the universe get all pissed when you tell them their God didn't do it.

Which is not what evolution says. But it is what many evolution proponents want to say out of their personal theology, and so they try to use their scientific theorem to say it for them.

The theists pick up on this understated intent handily, and want to fight this clear, unspoken challenge to their God's sovereignty.

The problem rears when theists respond with the same tactics. Using legal and intellectual rhetoric, they try to refute the implied meaning (a challenge to God's existence) by winning the surface argument (evolution's factuality). So theists fight the shadow war on their opponents' ground. That's the roadmap to Losertowne.

Look, using scientific principles to determine God's involvement in nature has so far been unprovable. (Other principles render God more apparent, but dogged materialists demur the evidence of unmeasured experience.) Therefore, suggesting that a set of observations obviates God is in fact, empirically unknowable. And to a serious rational atheist, it's intellectually dishonest. So, end of argument. Whatever else an aggressive unbeliever brings to the table after that is bear baiting.

Theists: Don't be bears.
This is what theists need to bring to the table: bread. Break it with the unbelievers and relax.

For my branch of theists, hearken: Jesus is revealed more eloquently in what you do than in the best-rendered arguments. We are here to win hearts, not fights.