I tend to agree that the mere belief in God does not constitute an attack on science.

However, using the Bible or other scripture or religious pronouncement to argue in favor of creationism and to oppose evolution would be an attack on science in my view. Using the Bible or other scripture or religious pronouncement to argue in favor of supernatural powers beyond what science can discover as opposed to natural law would be an attack on science.

Using the Bible or other scripture or religious pronouncement to argue for slavery, or women's subservient role, or a superior race, or gay bashing or anything else like that I would consider to be an attack on (social) science or humanism-based ethics.

A religious reporter argued with me that someone's strongly held religious beliefs based on scriptures like the Bible should be considered important when making decisions in society about the environment, technology, ethics, etc. I disagreed.

I argued that it would be as foolish as seriously considering a child's belief in fairies when making important decisions about society.

Any idea that is promoted in the Bible but has been shown to be wrong by our best minds today (e.g., slavery) should be ignored. Any idea that is promoted in the Bible and is considered right by our best minds (e.g., marriage) should be continued, because of modern knowledge, NOT because it is in the Bible. In other words, what the Bible says is irrelevant in the modern world. We should marry because sociologists and psychologists tell us it's good, not because the Bible says it's good.

We don't need the Bible to tell us right from wrong or to explain the universe. Read the Bible to help understand the thinking of ancient superstitious people of the Middle East, but don't use it as a tool to further some misguided agenda in our enlightened age.