Science deals entirely things that can be seen, and it is always literal in dealing with them. Religion deals with things that are not readily seen, for example an abstract ethical system, and it often requires highly symbolic language, metaphors, parables, allegories, and other "poetic" language. Religion is typically not literal.
Science cannot deal with morality. There is no science that can prove killing is wrong or right, ask any Nazi. There is no science that can prove slavery was not economically successful. Arguments against slavery were not based on science. They were based on "human rights" that do not come from science. Now repeat, "endowed by their creator"
Religion can and typically does deal with morality. Religion typically deals with abstract systems of ethics. In the beginnings of civilization many people could not understand systems of ethics except as coming from some leader with a physical form. A troublesome attitude at the time was "I don't understand. Who is going to make me do right?" Things began to change especially with the increase in writing. Anthropomorphic Jesus was mostly an accommodation to children and retarded adults who could not understand an abstract ethical system otherwise. By the time of the formation of the United States the new attitude was that it is "a government of laws and not men."
Although school kids on the internet often think Darwin was some great scientist, people had been breeding plants and animals more or less wittingly for centuries before the Bible was written. There is even a story of gene pool modification in Genesis 30:31-31:13. That is people who have a talent for dealing with religion also have some talent for science. It is not religion or science as some people think. Religious people are often better scientists. It did not require any great leap of the imagination to get from what was already in the Bible to anything Darwin wrote.
What was actually quite wrong about the "science" of evolution was that it did not really explain the origin of life itself, just gene pool modifications that might lead to new species. In 1859 science was in such a primitive state, and the understanding of biology was so very simplistic, that some people thought evolution could also explain the origin of life itself. Darwin never tried to claim that. At least he was that much of a scientist.
The notion that evolution might explain the origin of life from lifeless matter all but disappeared in the 1930s when Thomas Hunt Morgan discussed the "chromosome." As most intelligent people since then suspected, life is far too complicated to happen by chance alone. In fact it is thoroughly understood now that at a molecular level the more simple the molecule the greater the chance of it continuing. The larger, more complicated molecules are more likely to break. That is "natural selection" working in reverse. Watch it in your labs time and time again as it builds nothing.
So the "debate" between Creationism and Evolution is actually between people who misread the Bible and people who misread Darwin. It is not a pretty sight. We need to discourage those people from using their real names on the internet.
Although life itself does appear to be somewhat miraculous in its very origin at least, there might not be as many miracles in the Bible as some people think. In troublesome and brutal times the people of the Bible perhaps "stretched" the truth in order to inspire respect for them in the world. In those times such "colorful" story telling was preferred to attempts at an accuracy that was not really practical then anyway.
Scriptures indicate the people of the Bible crossed the Red Sea on leaving Egypt and the Jordan River before entering the land that would become their home. However neither of those bodies of water was as wide and deep as the Mississippi River is at St. Louis. In both cases it was less of a miracle than some people think.
The Bible is not clear how much damage Jesus received to his lungs, heart, or brain. He might have gone into what we today would call a coma. There was no word for a coma at that time. Maybe he "really" died, but again the Bible is not clear.
The most difficult of "miracles" in the Bible to explain is one where someone "disappears" into heaven. It supposedly happens in both the Old and New Testaments. Maybe they "disappeared" in a cloud of dust at a rather low level, or maybe they actually flew.
When the prophets of the god of the Bible were able to ignite "water" it might have been "girl scout water." Some boys who ought to have more respect for girls call kerosene girl scout water implying girls cannot start a fire without kerosene. In fact there are probably as many girls who can start a fire without kerosene as there are boys.
An obvious dilemma is how to acknowledge something happened for which we have no scientific explanation yet without turning loose all those people who believe the Bible is chock full of miracles when it probably isn't? We just explained how very rare miracles are and now you want to turn another pack of people loose who believe miracles happen almost every day to almost anyone? Why not give us a break?
Something important to notice here is that "science," at least in somewhat fictional form, or very highly theoretical form, has allowed a universe with more incredible possibilities than any religion ever imagined. Some people will believe anything if you just slap a label of science on it. For most people, most of the time, it is still fiction. It has proved to be quite a problem though. It turns out, surprise, that blind faith in science can exist, and can be a much worse problem than blind faith in anything else. What to do about that is yet another dilemma, how to keep the "good" science.
Another important thing to realize is that miracles do not happen almost everyday to almost anyone. Expecting something very miraculous is like expecting to win the lottery. People are still generally sane enough to only venture what they can afford to lose on the lottery. That is especially true of people who can actually read the Bible. If there are people who believe they can just pray their gas tank to fill up and it will, even they will likely figure out in a very few failed tries that no god is in that plan.
Dilemma solved. Should it prove much later that on the contrary miracles can happen almost everyday to almost anyone there would be no dilemma then either.
The problem in the world today is not religion. The problem in the world today is not science. Of two different problems, one with blind faith in religion and one with blind faith in science, the far worse problem today is blind faith in science. Considerable data and responsible analysis suggests the reaction to "covid" was highly inordinate. That does not mean that every vaccine in history was a bad idea. It only means things got out of control lately. Internet hordes probably deserve much of the blame.
There was a recent news story that an increase in measles can be traced to a church. There is a suggestion that religion is the problem. Again, for those who can actually read, the real problem today is blind faith in science, not religion. Yes, keeping the "good" science will be a problem, probably for a long while. However "religion" didn't cause that problem, bad science did. Many people today believe that modern "science" says that homosexuality is not a mental illness. There is considerable confusion over what exactly the American Psychiatric Association meant in 1973 when they changed their list of definitions of mental illnesses. Where would anyone get the audacity to suggest religion is the problem? Don't make me come down there. I will.
If you are in an "atheist" group on Meta (Facebook), please get a clue. They might be asking you to go back to school.