Science against God

What twaddle ti's to prattle that science and religion don't overlap!To postulate Him as the Creator, the Grand Miracle Monger and so forth, then theists do indeed themselves have Him intrude into science, which contradicts science.
  Science finds no evidence for miracles, the future state, works due to prayers,  theResurrections, the Ascension, Mary's Assomption, transubstantiation, the Deluge,creationism, Muhammad's Ascension and splitting of the Moon and His  actions in the Cosmos. This is not just then a matter of countering fundamentalism but all theism.To allege that no, ti's a category mistake to find no God as He is metaphysical,begs the question thereof.
   The Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth the teleonomic argument alone eviscerates theism. God supposedly acts in the Cosmos and indeed cause it to arrive, but no, because were that so, science would find evidence for His actions; it finds none and thus, no divine intent interrupts the natural order.
    No evidence ever arrives to find Him responsible for miracles,including answered prayers, which bespeak the post hoc fallacy-coincidence, and theists ever rationalize for failed prayers. Historians find no evidence that He has anything to do with the survival of Jewry, but evidence against His acting- the Holocaust. Astrophysicists find the Big Expansion no more than a transformation of pre-existing quantum fields. Biologists find no evidence that He helped the process of evolution alone.To prattle that why, evolution is His manner of creation begs the question, a false assumption.
      The argument finds that instead of complementing science, religion contradicts it. From the side of science, to add God makes Him a useless redundancy,despite Alister Earl McGrath. Theistic evolution is just an oxy-moronic obscurantism.
     Theism is according to Lamberth's argument from reduced animism another superstitio like full animism. Both use a false intent for actions: the former postulates God-one intent not found whilst the other manyalse intents. 
      To persist in arguing that no, He does have intent but per John Hick's epistemic argument, He hides Himself ambiguously so as not to overwhelm our free wills.