I'm with Moose on this one, I am not 100% sure what you are trying to convey. However, I will give it a try based upon how I have interpreted your post.
I think the relationship you are trying to discuss is the reverse and a little difference. I think what you really were trying to aim for is this; does science validate God's writings. Especially if examine your example of 8th day circumcision.
In this particular example what you posted (I think) is that very religious people say that because science has noticed that clotting factors are highest on the 8th day it validates the teachings of God to circumcise on the 8th day. In this particular example the religious person has supplied an ad-hoc rationalization to believe in God; i.e. if God is right about circumcision (even though God never gave a detailed and pertinent reason why) it must mean that other teachings of God can, are or will be validated.
Basically in the long haul seriously religious people ultimately will utilize any thing that will validate their beliefs to continue to believe in what they believe. Some do it because they are intellectually lazy, others do it because they want reason and others yet do it because there is money to be made in believing it (or even acting like you believe it).
However, in regards to science I would say that science does not necessarily speak for itself, but science as a process for looking at the larger picture of natural processes in the world is truly justification by itself. I say this because in participating in science you get more than just a intuitive (i.e. attributing everything to higher being or just being intellectually lazy) look at the world. And while intuition, as a whole, is a fairly decent tool for making day to day decisions it is not the best tool for doing things that will have long range impact (i.e. building a structure, or developing medicine).
™ Version 4.2
