What I mean is that there are fundamental questions science cannot answer because there are not the tools to measure - a simple example being the notion of what happened at the start of a "big bang" formation of the universe, which Hawking illustrated very well in A Brief History of Time and the example of time cones. Simply put, there is no information known to us as accessible to observe such a moment, therefore what happened at the start must remain conjecture.
What I find with both science and religion is that in their quest to provide more comprehensive answers, both end up stepping outside of their remit and boundaries, and make unsupportable assertions. I don't see a problem with belief systems examining themselves, but I see clear limitations in every area which lay outside of the reason of such systems.
I'm a scientist by training (well, I dropped out of a degree in chemistry to pursue to arts!), but while the education system would often try and brush aside fundamental unanswered questions, in order to make a particular theory palatable for general consumption, my best teachers always encouraged me to question. There's nothing like reading New Scientist while following a curriculum to realise just how limited the subject being studied is.
I don't have a problem at all with evolution - I personally think it's irrefutable - but I think philosophically speaking there is just too high an incidence of order in the universe for the process to be caused by chance and random acts - there remains an underlying process engineering how life will change to necessary environmental stimuli. And while I don't subscribe to a religious belief in how the universe or life formed, I think mathematics and chaos theory show clear patterns underlying existence which defy chance. All energy is subject to entropy, and yet there is a process at work in existence that actively fights against that.
While religion will try and answer fundamental philosophical questions within their own languages, I think the results will always remain limited by social and personal axioms - similarly, scientific method as a tool can only accept/reject hypotheses based on quantitative data, and fundamental questions of existence do not allow for such data. Hence at some point the individual must take a "leap of faith" in whichever direction most suits their world view.
2c.
