The problem with that entire article is that science doesn't deal in truths, only in facts and explanations.
I can feel Sam Harris's anger from here! Of course you can. Whoever wrote this was an idiot who is trying so hard to make themselves look smart. And, would you look at that, it turns into the old "science can't do everything therefore religion" rubbish halfway down the page.
First half: 1) Science can prove that according to known natural processes it's impossible for the world to have been created five minutes ago. If one assumes an omnipotent god, the idea of it being created five minutes ago becomes more likely. 2) Moral truth is not a useful term in science. The reason we know that some things are bad is because we can see and scientifically study their negative impact on people. 3) Science can show thousands of situations where predictions based on logic are correct. Logic itself is true by definition -- and no, that's not a circular "logic is logical" argument. 4) Science is not used in every situation. That is an inappropriate place to try to apply the scientific method, as all who know about science understand. Religion also has no place here. 5) Neither can anything else. Love is a subjective, ill-defined, and personal feeling; again, it's the wrong place to try and shoehorn science in. Second half: 1) Christianity is not testable. You cannot form a hypothesis and prove or disprove it. Christianity is not scientific; just because it makes claims about the universe does not mean those claims are the case. I believe they are because I am Christian, but I know that there is not logical or scientific proof. 2) So does science. 3) I do not see how this is an argument for Christianity or related to science. A non-compartmentalised life is also possible if one has no faith. 4) Yeah, the author really has nothing related to science any more. 5) Why is that a good thing? Why should you get to know him? Answer your own questions, because they're not as rhetorical as you think.
