Science is one system of belief- not the system of belief. How can light be both a particle and a wave? Any physicist, theist or not, will acknowledge this reality. It depends on the observer and the method of observation.
Science isn't a system of belief, it's a system of doing verifications on ideas, and discarding those ideas we can't verify. As for the light being a particle and a wave, that's just another variation of "How can bumble bees fly?" Sure, those not familiar with this aspect of light might think this is a tough question that can't be answered, but it can and has been.
The scientific method of inquiry is based on a belief system that prioritizes sensory data to the exclusion of all other data. Implicit in this belief is the absolute accuracy of sensory perception, although we have ample scientific documentation of situations in which "reality" can be shaped based on the group pressure or beliefs of a subject. In other words, the scientific method can falsify itself. That is not to deny the utility of scientific observation, it is simply to point out that like Newtonian physics, it has a spectrum of reality in which it is applicable, but it is not a transcendent truth, which is exactly what theists claim the Creator to be. For non-sensory perception, see "genetic memory" and "epigenetics." I don't know if anyone is researching the pineal gland as a sensory organ, but I don't think so since how would you make money off of it, and how do you get a research grant then??
The dual nature of light is an accepted scientific model, and the bumblebee argument is a thought experiment like the black swan. The example of light is cited to illustrate that the observer will always affect the outcome of an observation, and that objectivity is the mythical holy grail of science, that never has been and never will be found. My concern in the belief of the findings of the scientific method as representing transcendent truth is
1) these truths always can and do change
2) taken to the logical end it can result in a justification of hedonism
3) it can lead to an emphasis on materialism as the importance of emotional and spiritual dimensions is downplayed due to the difficulty of quantifying them
I see the scientific mode of inquiry as one valid perspective among many. I worry that its preeminence is one of the reasons that neo-liberal economic models reign in policy making today- the economic models currently used only try to calculate growth and often ignore more difficult to model factors like inequality, or prioritize production efficiency (output) over consumption efficiency (marginal utility or satisfaction). I would neither deny scripture nor scientific documentation of perception as a source of truth- to do either would limit my dataset. I don't think these perspectives are incompatible, but they are sometimes framed as such in an emotionally charged debate with economic incentives- I mean party politics.
Thank you for this lively discussion. I doubt we will be able to conclude a hundreds of years old debate, but I appreciate your demonstration of these very robust reasoning processes.