Science and Religion - Dichotomy or Concord

Humans, ever since inception have acquiesced existence of superior-being primarily to mask their fear of unknown. Natural elements such as wind, water and fire have been respected and still revered due to their sheer force. No matter how science might have advanced, still we are enpowered by these enraged forces of nature. But, as science led to demystification of many of the natural phenomenons, only those few unknowns have still remained in the elated "super-being" podium. An important sociological behavior of humains is to attribute unknown to god. However, this has plethora of implications in varied contexts. Currently answering them is beyond the realms of mortal being. For example, in a mathematican's perspective finding the recurring-sequence of Pi might answer the other alike unanswered questions of the world. From a theoretician's eye, solving P = NP would yield answers to far beyond. A evolutionary biologist, and a astro-physicist working in conjunction would have a totally different hypothesis. I feel evolution can not be charted out as a tree as we can always question who created the root.

Having set some non-sensical tone, I want to wander of into a semi-related issue. Is it just to attribute ignorance to god. I beg to differ as religion should be never be adopted mode of living, but shoud act as substitute envigorating humans to synergize the short-time lived in a much productive way. Also, I would say "chart out the root of the origin, if she is a beautiful blonde who is five feet 10, I would truly believe god exists." Till then I would try to do it myself. Until I succeed I shall refrain from rambling otherwise.