Today believe in religion slows the progress of science.

1. Denying the big bang and believing the earth was created about 10,000 years.
2. Being a against abortion
3. Denying parts of human history.
4. Discarding physical laws. (Believe in miracles).
5. Condemning homosexuals.
6. Being against embryo research.
7. And recruiting more people to do the same.

Religion slows down the progress of science.

Thank you for an interesting topic. I will mainly speak from the point of view of Christianity since that is what you seem to be addressing.

1) No Christan should deny the Big Bang theory. In fact, the Big Bang goes a long way towards showing that the universe has a creator. All that is left is to show that this creator is personal. Secondly, scripture nowhere states that the earth is 10,000 years old, and it strongly suggests that humans at least have been around for longer. Those who hold this view misunderstand science and religion, but this would be the case regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

2) Being against abortion is the use of science and reason. Abortionists who believe the human being has the right not to be killed only it passes out of the magic vagina where special humanity dust is sprinkled on it.

3) Please specify which parts, and I will be happy to address it.

4) Belief in miracles does not destroy science. Surely some physical laws can be violated at times by God, but the vast majority of events happen outside of the supernatural. In other words, miracles have to be rare to be called miracles. Conversely, scripture tells us that God is the same and that He upholds the universe by His unchanging word. Therefore, we know that the universe behaves now like it did in the past. This is the basis of science and something that naturalism cannot possibly show.

5) This isn't really a scientific issue. It is more of a moral issue.

6) Perhaps you are correct on this point, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Christians also slowed down the science of the Nazis during WWII. Maybe they even prevented discoveries by doing so, but we should all be glad they did.

7) This only applies if the above are valid, so it does not apply.

Naturalism is Incompatible with Science:
1) If naturalism is true, then we cannot know that the past behaved like the present. Naturalist must simply assume this by faith.

2) If naturalism is true, our brains are simply just complex machines. If this is true it is impossible for humans to have free will since our decisions are simply very long domino effects. This makes human reason impossible since reason requires the ability to make decisions (correct ones). Secondly, if naturalism and evolution are both true, there is no reason to trust our minds. Evolution alone is unable to create things like philosophical and scientific reasoning. Perhaps it is able to make us choose which berry is not poisonous, but there is no reason for humans to be able to think about questions like "where did we come from?" This ability is the foundation both to the pursuit of science and the ability to understand scientific data. On the other hand, those who believe in God, regardless of whether evolution is true, can believe in human reason, the basis of all science.

3) Naturalism cannot form any type of moral foundation. When you are in the lab, what scientific imperative tells you that you must be honest with your findings? If it is okay for you to be dishonest in your findings, I think it is obvious that this would have a negative effect on science, much more so than a few fringe young earth creationists outside of the scientific community. Those who truly live out such a naturalistic philosophy have the ability to negatively affect the science from a greater position of power.