Peace diwana
The reason why people try to explain religion on the basis of science is because science is the 'norm' of the day. It is utilised by many yet only understood deeply by a few. The same applies to faith. Science is the branch of philosophy (which is the study of knowledge) that restricts its scope to tangible matters. Because these matters are objective, people can easily test theories for truth in almost mathematical beauty and render something true or false based on their tests.
It is true that science and religion being compared with one another on the basis of scientific truth criteria will be a futile process, because science will present many question marks (????) with respect to the questions of faith and matters of the unseen. However, science can still be used for other matters.
Of course science such as archaeology and forensics can help us determine the authenticity to relics and burial sites. Not for our purposes but to prove to those people that our accounts are historically correct and unaltered.
Science can be used to help understand the concepts of high speed travel and multi-dimensional existence to fathom support for the beliefs that we have. Science will not disprove them, but support a framework of how those beliefs can be true or understood in light of modern knowledge.
Surely, those who translate the Qur'an have read science because in it there is a term in archaic Arabic which refers to the smallest thing of physical matter - zarra ... The early Muslims equated this with a dust grain, because to them that was the smallest thing known, but modern translations render the word zarra to atoms weight, which puts in our minds the same awe that those early Muslims must have had. For today the dust particle is far bigger than it was perceived to be in th earlier days, so a word which is better suited needs to be used instead. Verily, modern science helps us understand our scirpture with more vigour.
The failings of science however, is actually the failing of us to have allowed pseduo-sciences such as evolution to enter the discipline. It has become a belief system in itself and thus presents a threat to religion.
However, approaching this subject from a philosophy angle we can begin to take piecemeal each item as it comes and before comparing science with religion we aught to first determine whether the science we are using is theory or fact, scientific or just atheist propaganda.
Regarding matters of Jinn:
You said that science will never explain what Jinn are using scientific methods. Firstly, we do not know whether science can or cannot discover Jinn. You seem too sure science will never find them, in which case the people who profess only to science will disregard Islam because Jinn cannot be proven, however, this is not the way to disprove Islam. From a philosophy angle we should consider that if scientific methods cannot disprove or prove Jinn, then the matter remains unknown and hence what is unknown can either be true or false and hence nothing is disproven. This logical deduction is a 'scientific' tool for thought used by philosophers. If something can not be disproven then it must be said that it MAY be true.
Consequently the belief system uses a process of supportive evidence rather than direct tangible proof. So for example our scripture talks of Jinn and since the scripture can be proven to be authentic and unchanged from the time it was first penned, then we can say with confidence that the belief in Jinn is an authentic one for Muslims. And we utilise an inner light to comprehend matters of belief.
Science cannot actually explain anything. It just provides a scenario for testable evidence. i.e. you say if you move your hands very fast at one another a sound will come - clap ... you can hear it therefore it is proven when it happens time and again within set parameters. i.e. not in water for example. Science does not go beyond what we perceive but it never attempts to explain why. It just explains how and what mathematical model can be used to predict a very near approximation of the consequential action.
To a similar degree believers can assert that the prayer is a good scientific method for improving ones sense of God-Consciousness. The prerequisite is however that we already believe in God then and thereafter we pray and open our channels to receive guidance we will increase in piety through regular prayer. This points the ayat in the Qur'an to be true in this context.
Even science makes assumptions. Assumptions are necessary to map the real world into model ones in order to overcast mathematical techniques into place.
Likewise belief in God can be seen as the scientific 'assumption' that we make in order to add substance to what we do in our faith.
Alas to believe 1 add 1 equals 2 is both a statement of logical fact, but it is also a statement of faith. I don't think there is a single reasonable atheist that does not believe 1 add 1 does not equal 2 in its normal operational decimal meaning.
So what you have highlighted is actually not contradictions in science and religion which will present a problem even to us. But you have presented the limitations of scientific scope with respect to the world we live in. Science is only a tool to put analogy into our surroundings the sooner science based atheists realise this the better.
So I in a way agree with you that science and religion should not be compared in as much they should not be classed as two approaches to life that are juxtaposed with one another, because science is not a religion.
However, we can use science to add support for Islam when comparing Islam with other faiths such as evolutionary atheism, or other more established religions.
Logic, testable evidence (i.e. science), insight, beauty, emotional balance, societal fairness, spiritual heights and most of all sincerity to find the truth, are all methods to the determination of the truth of Islam and any other belief. It is my condition as a person who feels ALL matters in Islam are met with the above tools that makes me a Muslim. Though science is unlike religion, we cannot ignore science to help us find truths in matters that ARE covered by its scope.
Thanks and peace psyah:
I tried to say that religion is religion and science and scientific knowledge should not be used to prove or refute religion.
Religion is a matter of personal choice made by heart and soul and not by vision, smell, taste, touch or hearing.
Even though religion was spread by many material tools, ultimate adoption of religon rests on mind and heart and soul be willing to accept it without any material proof. That is called Hidayat.
Sometimes religion used tools such as 'miracles' which were beyond human perception or power to make people believe in religion.
So no need to make claims the religion is scientific or not. Its a waste of time and energy.
One may just say there are certain things in religion which can also be explained by science.
But science is handicapped and religion has no boundaries.
Only reason one may believe on Jinns since it is talked about in books.
I, with limited exposure to people coming in contact with me have never met anyone who could explain or prove Jinns and their existence. Many of these were psychologic issues and happened in 30's and 40's in India. (its a different topic altogether)