The difference between that "holy" book and most others is that it takes a definitive viewpoint that all men are flawed and the ONLY redemption is by faith. Science doesn't deal, ever, with how flawed man really is. Science assumes that we can "fix" whatever flaws we have with science, where that book makes the exact opposite case.
And from EMPIRICAL evidence, the book is 100% accurate on that point, while science is 0%. I guess we just need to give science more time to catch up. huh?
Huh? You're going to have to explain that one a bit more. Are you seriously arguing that empirical evidence suggests man is bad, and the only redemption he can find is by believing the teachings in a 2,000 year old book that has been the cause of more wars than I care to count? Or that his only redemption is through faith in some sort of God? How do you explain societies that evolved and survived just fine without Christianity like, I don't know, Japan, or China? Was every member of those cultures implicitly immoral and incapable of redemption?
And are you honestly arguing that there is no empirical evidence that science can fix flaws? I don't even know where to start picking that argument apart. What about when science showed that all humans, regardless of race, descended from one set of common ancestors, thus providing a pretty compelling scientific arguement for ending racism? Does that not count for some reason?
I mean, seriously, how can you make a claim like the one you made and keep a straight face?
Factorials were someone's attempt to make math LOOK exciting.