A good source of information on this subject, compiled by phd scientists,
is www.answersingenesis.com.au

Better sites for information on this subject by people with phds are http://www.noanswersingenesis.com.au or http://www.talkorigins.com. You will find facts not fantasies

It is all very well to say that there is a great gap in knowledge of modern molecular biology etc. between the religious and scientists but honestly how many scientists have actually studied the bible? I know I haven't - I have tried but gave up a few pages into Genesis because it doesn't tie in with my views. Most of us are guilty of ignorance one way or another. Presumably those who both believe and are scientists - they definitely do exist - know something the rest of us don't. Maybe we should ask them rather than assume they are some sort of anomoly. That would be the scientific approach.

Whether free will exists or not is hardly a useful topic for public/political debate. While it is interesting philosophically - the practical reality is that we do need to lock up those who commit crimes. This requirement exists whether or not they made the decision "freely".

Whether the process of thinking is classical (in the Newtonian/deterministic sense), random (per Quantum Mechanics), or based on mathematical "fuzzy logic" the end result is the same. We take some inputs, we consider them for a while, and we come to a conclusion. We expect to be judged on that conclusion.

To all intents and purposes we do have a free will. The little statement on this issue significantly detracts from article in my view. There seemed no purpose for it.

Examining the main point now... It is possible, I believe, to argue against a point of view while being tolerant at the same time.

So yes. Of course we should be tolerant. As long as those who believe in religion do not unreasonably impinge on my freedoms (and the majority do not), I have no wish or intention to impinge on theirs.

I think the bit on free will is a red herring.
Why is it that those of a religion believe in free will because it came from God?(as suggested). There are many sects of Christians who deny free will, or at least have a diminished view of freedom(based, e.g., on issues of election and sovereignty). Like wise there are many non-theistic philosophers who argue for strong (libertarian) free will, even in the face of arguments from illusion.
Lastly, there is brand of thinker (called the compatibilist) who thinks that free will is consistent with a determined universe.
It is one thing to assert the alleged clash between science and religion, (to what success has to be determined), but to suggest that science and free will are opposites needs a lot more thinking about.