Relationships between Science and Religion

T

The three models about the relationship between religion and science are:

I) Science and religion conflict in principle:
This sometimes called the warfare model of the relationship between science and religion because only one or the other can survive.Religion beliefs drawn from purported divine revelations, held entirely on the basis of authority whereas science beliefs justified by sense experience and the application of scientific method.For example,
( a) the story about Galileo and the Church:Galileo claims Sun is the centre of the universe while the Church claims that the Earth is the centre of the universe in which all planets revolve around the Earth.
(b) The steady state theory and the religions(Christians, Muslims and Jews):Steady state theory says the universe is eternal and it has no beginning while the religions says the universe has its beginning.

2)Science and religion cannot conflict in principle:Science interrogates natural world, the world of natural objects such as atoms and molecules, stars and galaxies.Religion, on the other hand, purports to tell us about God or gods, angels, the supernatural, the after life, immaterial souls and that sort of thing. They cannot be in conflict because they treat distinct domains of objects. In other words, science talk about why is the universe made of(facts) and why does it work that way(theory) whereas religion talk about the ultimate meaning and moral value.
This principle is supported by Harvard distinguished Evolutionary theorist, Stephen Jay,  called Non-Overlapping Magisteria(NOMA) . For example, cloning:
"Science uses theory construction and experimentation to determine how cloning works . Religion uses philosophical theorizing or appeals to authority to determine the moral boundaries in our use of cloning technology".

3)Science and religion may or may not conflict in principle:
As we know philosophically, that we can't determine the truths or falsity of belief simply on the basis of its origin. This is also known as "Genetic fallacy".So, I might come out to believe that there are 210 people following my blog(AstroMuon Kuki)  because it's 2:10 on my watch right now. Now, that would be a really hard bad reason to believe that  there are 210 people following my blog(AstroMuon Kuki) right now, but that doesn't mean that it is false. Yet, I can't draw conclusions about the truth and falsity of the belief just on the basis of mechanism by which I came to it. Likewise, if this is the mechanism by which I come to hold religious belief, that doesn't show that these beliefs are false. Evolutionary psychologists have claimed is that there are certain cognitive tools that we have that trigger certain kinds of beliefs and we tend to form narrative about them to transmit those to others.

Imagine if it's true, that there is a God who created the universe, and set evolutionary processes in motion in such a way that human  beings like us emerged. If in fact the universe is created in the way that theists claim, that even if these beliefs emerge through evolutionary processes, they might perfectly will be justified. And if they're not, they're not. Unfortunately, none of that really helps us to conclude whether or not those beliefs are justified on their own. It just takes us to back to the initial question. Is there such a divine being or not?