On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 2:20:29 PM UTC-6, wrote:

Sure, science would continue, but some scientists would be left in
the dust because they couldn't adapt. Saint Albert and QM is a case
in point. I would hope that I'm flexible enough to embrace new
evidence, whatever it is.

Assuming by St. Albert you mean Albert Einstein. Who of course is
dead. If Einstein were somehow still alive I am sure he would not be
fundamentally unable to continue inquire should he learn some of his
theories were incomplete.

I'm sure he's learned a lot since he has died.

I don't know what your point is. The Abrahamic religions DO continue
"even though" they believe those things you list.

You missed my point.

Apparently.

Accepting that a diety guided the 13 Jewish tribes

13? I thought there were 12 sons.

to a promised land because they are a chosen people, that Jesus is
divine, and that Mohamed received the Qu'ran from the lips of a diety
are fundamental components of those faiths. If one were to accept
proof disputing the tenants, that person would no longer be considered
among the faithful. This holds even among the more liberal denominations..

And it holds in science, too. Consider Halton Arp, Roy Spencer and others
were/are not considered among the "faithful."

“Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there
are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all
in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small
probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted
of organic soup.” – Fred Hoyle

There has a been many additions to biochemistry since the 1980s when
Hoyle wrote what that quote.

So there must be some undiscovered shortcuts or life began elsewhere
long, long, long ago. Maybe even before the Big Bang?

Not likely.

"Likely" or "not likely" are human-cognitive but not necessarily related
to the universe.

https://physicsworld.com/a/new-evide...nd-colleagues/