As one of my profs liked to put it, modern physics relies mostly on smacking really small objects with really fast moving objects and seeing what happens, the equivalent of "kicking a dog and seeing how loud it barks", then assuming you know all of dog-iness based off your results. Or locking a cat in a box with some poison and a radioactive material.

What gets so many religous types and/or atheists (depending on your view of atheism) is to assume science can have any effect on your belief system in a meaningful way. "Evolution disproves God" is just about the most sophmoric and philosophically lacking statement around, yet so many use that or a variaiton of that to browbeat their supposedly intellectual inferiors. It's like watching a retard fight, pardon my PC violation, or two people trying to dual each other to death with bananas in the middle of an armory.

Real scientists run the gambit on religous beliefs, and rarely bother debating them in scientific context because it's been pretty obvious for a long time that it is a totally futile conversation. Science is the study of nature, the natural universe. As it turns out, that is kind of incapable of dealing with the supernatural.

The particle for knowledge, the so-called knowledgeon and it's anti-particle, the moron, if they exist, do not interact via the current known forces, nor do the soul-on or justice-on, or any others. Current scientific theory does not require them, nor does any evidence exist for them beyond the humorous, hence they are not included in the model. However, on the other side of the coin there is no reason to think that if such concepts have some actual reality to them - like karma - that they would have mass, charge, color, etc. Most philosophers and theologians get this, so do most scientists, only a number of atheists seem locked onto the idea they can somehow disprove God this way. They snap up science like it was a hammer and try to beat the stupid out of people. Your average atheist doesn't want to admit that most atheists are atheists for reasons that have nadda to do with science, it's just their personal vehicle, they dislike organized religions especially, apparently unaware that many scientists are devout members of them.

Yeah, sure, science has it's role in these debates. Primarily for popping other people's baloons when they drag in science to support their beliefs or lack thereof. Someone starts whacking at evolution as a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics it's legit to say "Hey, could you at least wait till the big fiery ball of increasing entropy sets for the day before spewing this stuff, I have difficulty buying into your logic while the sun is visible."

From the physicists point of view the argument is straightforward, if something doesn't interact with the universe, can't be detected, doesn't at least leave a gaping hole, than it's best to assume for calculation's purpose that it might as well not exist because it has no effect. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, by that logic we'd have to assume alternate timelines didn't exist (they may or may not of course) because they don't effect us and can't be detected.

Believe as you will, but avoid dragging science into it, it won't help on such things and the only thing that get's damaged in the process is science, microscopes make poor hammers to beat at walls with.