Yes, absolutely I am saying that science offers (provisional) answers that religion cannot. When religious answers build a plane, I'll be more amenable to thinking there might be something to them. But I never said science can answer non-scientific questions. I implied, though I probably should have been more clear, that many "non-scientific" questions are, when looked at closely, meaningless, such as the "what animates life" question above. And for some questions, we just don't know. I'm saying in cases where science does not have an answer, there is no reason to suppose religion does.
Sorry no. The point was a religous person has no reason not to understand and use science. He may however make different claims about why science exists, and the nature of the thing invovlved with the apprehension of the occurences. The continued trumpeting of something incredibly profound in the observing of repeated phenemenon does not strike me as being the pinnacle of our ability to make "sense" of things as it does to you. And for that matter there seems to be an implied "simple mindedness" to those who think the only real questions have answers with consistent moving identifiable parts.