Err, umm, how does he justify tossing the word "intelligently" in there in, for example:

But epigenetics falsified all of that. Science tells us that populations rapidly and intelligently adapt to environmental challenges. Such responses, for example, may be accomplished via modifications to the DNA sequence or via modifications to how genes are expressed. For instance small chemicals, such as methyl groups or hydroxyl groups (or one on top of the other!), may be attached to the DNA or to the histone proteins about which the DNA is wrapped. And such modifications can be passed on to subsequent generations.

So what about epigenetics says "intelligently"? Or did "intelligently" just come ex recto?

"Roughly" as in "a lot more than", presumably. Absent "God faked it all to test our faith", the evidence seems to be pretty good that both the universe and modern homo sapiens are more than 6000 years old.

So when will the physicists start to deal with the fact that the evidence doesn't fit the theory? Oh, wait, it already happened. Sometimes a simple model works for a while and then, as more evidence shows up, has to be replaced. That's what's happening here; it's not as if "God created it all at once and nothing big has changed since then" is the only replacement (or even that it's a replacement at all, unless you have an alternative explanation for the fossil record blah blah blah).

No, just God changing his mind:

Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

[Abraham prepares to sacrifice Isaac, and bullshits him with "trust me, we'll find a lamb to sacrifice somewhere around here"...]

And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

So, yeah, only the first 3 parts of El Fantasmo's paraphrase actually apply here:

God: Hey, Abraham! Go kill your son.
Abraham: OK.
God: No not really.

There are scientists who believe that science deprecates all previous religions. I have not seen any indication that all scientists do (there are, for example, scientists who identify themselves as Christian or Muslim, so...).

See my reply to point 1.

There are scientists who think science either can or will answer all those questions. There are also scientists who think "why does the universe exist?" are out of scope.

Yes, I suspect most scientists would reject the notion that science is a religion. One out of four isn't good enough, though.

And, in any case, that just causes the wave function to collapse - it doesn't say which particular outcome it collapses to, i.e. the measurement causes the electron to appear to have gone through slit A or slit B, but doesn't choose which slit. For an electron that happens to go through, for example, slit A, what causes it to go through that slit?

Erm, well, I'm not sure the Copenhagen interpretation has been experimentally demonstrated to be the only valid interpretation of quantum mechanics (no, experiments showing that local hidden variable theories don't work don't demonstrate that detection collapses the wave function), and I don't think the Copenhagen interpretation says anything about "thinking about the result".

Citations, please? I'd like to see whether the data really points to your interpretations.

Well, yes, we now have laws against, e.g., owning people as property, which is a definite improvement. Are you saying that this was, say, the result of a post-1850's Great Awakening, or something such as that? There were religious people on both sides of that "owning people as property" debate.

Well, perhaps the fittest might be the ones who don't just fuck other people over.

Well, I don't see any benefit to society to some Biblical beliefs, such as these beliefs and the one given here and here, and there's definite harm to people as a result of the first of those.

Now, maybe you're not counting all the crap in Leviticus as "Judea[sic] Christian beliefs". If so, what are you counting?

OK, you're definitely not counting all the crap in Leviticus, giving the pile of stonings to death, etc. called for there.

Yup. Fortunately for me, and for society, even though I'm a nonbeliever, I'm not one of those people. I know plenty of other nonbelievers who don't believe that stuff either.

...you don't originally have nothing. I'm not sure what you have at t=0, other than "a singularity?", but I'm not sure any theories of cosmology have zero energy at t=0.

OK, what causes a particular electron to go through the first slit, or through the second slit?

Are you willing to challenge your beliefs - including any belief you have in a creator?

I have yet to find any reason to believe in a creator, but have somehow managed to think about morals and ethics beyond survival instincts. Perhaps there are people who can't think about them without belief in a creator; that prospect is both sad and frightening (those folks might well think about them badly with a poor choice of faith - "the creator tells me to kill these people because they don't believe in him!").