What is needed to combat the overwhelming level of belief in God?

[SteveII]

I think that naturalism has been embraced by many because of either 1) the misunderstanding that it can account for everything we see or 2) if not now, it will.

As it relates to enlightening the masses, what happens if we do not figure out the origin of life and irreducible complexity? Isn't it logical that, with the overwhelming propensity for people to believe in a god, that naturalism will lose appeal when promised answers are not forthcoming? With 50% or so of scientist believing in god or higher power now, wouldn't that number just increase as time passes--further supporting a trend away from naturalism?

I embrace it because it works.  If we never find the origins of life we never find them (there is no such thing as irreducible complexity, you should respect yourself and your own posts enough not to shittify them).  Those believing scientists of yours -also- embrace naturalism, in case you were unaware...it's a necessary position, if you don't hold it you can't do science.  This, to me, -is- the best case scenario.  Even the religious now defer to science and naturalism rather than magic.  God is no longer a sky wizard, and it;s important for the religious to be able to feel that science somehow validates their faith.  That's a sea change for your religion, change for the better, imo.  Sure, there are those cases where two disparate things (science/religion) mix and produce idiocy...such as in yourself with your id nonsense, but by and large I don't see that as a permanent situation.  ID couldn't even get the support required for permanence in the place of it's birth..that's society saying "no, fuck you, go away".   The people who -do- believe in it don't believe strongly enough to compel them to action, and those few that are compelled have been shown to be completely ineffective at every level.  Here you are, running your mouth on an internet message board rather than doing the science to establish your own theory.  This is the periapsis of commitment to ID, this is all there is.  

Christianity is steadily becoming a religion of scientism here in the US.......lol.  You're evidence of that yourself as an IDer...what are you...going to do..about that?

I should have distinguished  between ontological/philosophical and methodological naturalism. My post referred to the former. Theists have been practicing methodological naturalism for a millennium. 

If scientism is the view that we should only believe what we can prove scientifically, then it is incoherent to think that Christianity or theistic scientists hold this view. 

Your rant against ID does not answer the question what happens when science cannot explain the origin of life? The longer they fail to do that, isn't logical to assume that people will begin to questions scientism?