I knew I was going to have trouble with this post only a few lines into it.
A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
Can we clarify if we're talking about a science professor or a philosophy professor because philosophy and science are two separate areas, although they can overlap a bit in the philosophy of science?
As a science professor, this imaginary individual really sucks at understanding what science is and does. As a philosophy professor he sucks as well.
I'd be asking for my money back as well and at the same time asking the institution to check the validity of the guy's qualifications.
The post is doing what is called arguing a straw man - i.e. it's setting up an incorrect view of science which it then demolishes with religious argument in order to "prove" religion.
Wouldn't it be so much better if when trying to criticise science, the post actually criticised science and not an intentionally warped version of it? All the post does is shoot down in flames the erroneous ideas of science which tend to be held by Creationists.
That's good for the evolutionists, since they don't then have to bother doing it themselves.