When an impasse develops in the public discourse, the cause is often the failure to employ specific definitions of terms. On close inspection people debating the "existence" of a god are really only debating the definition of one.
Which is the more serious problem?
Atheists often prefer a definition of a god that couldn't exist and their opponents often prefer a definition of a god that is likely to exist. Because the term term "science" is used loosely considerable confusion over definitions can develop there also.
There is a fundamental difference between the "science" of statistical analysis and exact science. There is a saying often attributed to Einstein that, "If you can't explain it to a child of six, you don't understand it yourself." There are complaints on the internet that it isn't possible to explain quantum mechanics to a child of six. The truth is though that if you cannot explain it to a such a child it is too highly theoretical and not really science yet.
Exact science is plain to see. The child can be told, "See that? It's the cause. And see that? It's the effect." The effect follows the cause. When the cause is a temperature of 212° Fahrenheit, the effect is that water boils. If it is indeed the cause the effect always follows when all other factors remain the same. If there are impurities in the water those might change the temperature at which it boils. If the air pressure is higher than "normal" or standard pressure, the water won't boil until the temperature is higher that 212°. If the air pressure is lower than standard the water will boil at a lower temperature than 212°. A good definition of "science" then is the cataloging of causes and effects other factors held the same. This is often called science ceteris paribus because "ceteris paribus" is Latin meaning "other things the same."
Explaining global climate change to a child is not as simple. There are no exact numbers. It is well beyond the scope of researchers to measure the temperature of the entire atmosphere of the planet. What can be done is to estimate that temperature using statistical analysis. That of course means two numbers, not one. If ten research teams each attempt to measure the temperature of the atmosphere each using various hot, cold and middling places, there will be a difference in the results of the teams even if each uses thousands of variously representative locations. In statistical analysis that difference is called the "spread" of the data. The number reported as the single temperature of the planet is called the "mean" of the data. When internet sources attempt to claim the temperature of the planet has changed by almost 2° Celsius, they fail to report the spread of the data, or the "standard deviation" of the data, since that would likely be far more than any change in the mean, making it irrelevant. It makes no sense to assume that when the local news cannot agree what the temperature of a city is, they could agree on what the temperature of the planet might be.
Other imagined indicators of global "warming" also fail. A reduction in polar ice can occur because the amount of water in the general atmosphere is determined mostly in the tropics. If ice at the poles is removed by radiant heat of the Sun as compared to the heat from convection or conduction, and it that ice not resupplied because the tropics are cooler, then a cooler planet could have less polar ice.
Hurricanes and tropical storms are not "caused" by warm air. They are caused by a layer of cold air over a layer of warm air. A cooler planet might have more tropical storms.
Another problem is that electric vehicles are not shown to have a smaller carbon footprint when the electricity they use must come from burning fossil fuels as is the case in the vast majority of the country still. There is an exorbitant inefficiency of power conversion. It is only better to have electric vehicles after charging stations are powered by renewable energy.
Health care costs remain too high in the United States because there is a blind, childish faith in the "science" of medicine, but medicine is not science. Although doctors do employ science wherever possible and typically have the best science, they must usually depend quite much on statistical analysis, which as thoroughly explained here can suffer from stunning failures of exactitude.
With cockroaches and perhaps mice it can be possible to use statistical analysis to obtain insights into the fundamental processes involved in their various activities and conditions. With human populations however the number of factors beyond the control of researchers becomes quite unwieldy. That is, the farther it will get from science ceteris paribus.
There are vast differences in the ways humans report their pain and limitations. One individual might have a sniffle and claim to be utterly debilitated, another individual might have a temperature of 102°F, various fluids running down the face, and demand to be allowed to go to work. There are differences in the "spirit" of individuals that cannot readily be measured as well.
Yet another blockade to good science in medicine is that people develop strong emotional concerns over the outcome of some special data surveys and might "stretch" the truth to suit their purposes. That can be especially obvious in the pandemic. It can be nearly impossible to get good science when people get emotionally involved in the results of surveys. Witness television.
Of the two charts near the top of this page, the chart showing the national debt shows the far more serious problem in the United States today. There are nothing but spurious fluctuations in the death rate. They are not sufficient to cause the level of alarm seen on television about any "new" virus. There has been no "science" without severe limitations of accuracy and meaning. Obviously an issue is how to decide what is the cause of death when there is more than one medical problem at death, when for example a person who dies of a heart attack happens to have a cold at the time. It can seem that if the person is not vaccinated, then he died of the cold, and if he is vaccinated then he died of the heart attack. Because the number of people dying with just one condition is low compared to multiple conditions (notice the chart above), those cannot resolve the issue.
Observe the many people on television recently urging people that because "deaths are increasing" it is important to get the vaccine. Notice also how bad their data and analysis are. But is their obviously blind faith in science nevertheless a good thing? I have often reminded people that faith, even blind faith, can save a lot of trying and retrying bad ideas, that it can be "efficient." It is already apparent though that people who do not understand why vaccination does not prevent people from being carriers can wreak havoc spreading the disease. So no, blind faith in science is not dependable. Whose then is the "misinformation"? Who is going to ban any? When did Facebook, Google, or any other internet platform organization develop the expertise to ban "misinformation"? Which employers are planning to enforce compliance with bad science? It will probably become awkward as the people with their blind faith in science have to back down.
The national debt continues to soar because the people representing science do not understand science, and the Republican party is not representing religion, rather a "nationalism" that heeds no cautions at all, scientific nor religious. They need to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover. There are numerous reasons they have not, mainly that most of them do not want to overturn it. They think that would hinder their authority(?). Another is that the impasse on intelligent design is, as the impasse often can be, a failure to employ specific and meaningful definitions. The definition of "random" used so far, except by readers here perhaps, is backward and confusing. The Republican candidate for governor of Virginia (election November ), Glen Youngkin, seems to have sat in on my discussions of the possible benefits of faith, but the application might be somewhat beyond his training. Why don't people who obviously need help ask for some? The disturbing thing about the abortion issue is that even if the Supreme Court overturns Rowe v. Wade, there will still be the same problem of enforcement as before, no exception for rape is unfair, and policing exceptions for rape is not practical. It appears overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover should go first, then people might genuinely become more circumspect about life so that it is not necessary to stand over them all day and night.
With the exception of Trump followers, most religious people can be depended upon to be excellent allies of science and government. Although it is not clear whether there is a "real" pandemic, either there is one or there are some very disturbed people trying to create the impression of one. There are plenty of nasty chemicals and bugs out there for their arsenal. Real or political that means it is best to follow authorities. If employers require vaccinations religious people will either get vaccinated or happily not work there. If anyone requires masks, not only will they wear masks, but they will think carefully about what that means. It does not appear though that the great alarm can last much longer.