We agree on the problems with Christianity and on the neglect of Gnosticism. Letters were forged in the Bible to tame Paul's Gnosticism. There's even Robert Price's theory that Paul was Simon Magus.
But my point in this article is that you can set aside that critical-historical framework and just look at the overall Pauline gospel as it's summarized in Romans, and find all the most disgusting later elements of Christian apologetics. Those elements were founded by Paul. Later Christians seem to be merely aping Paull's casuistry, sanctimony, audacity, duplicity, and so on.
I'm not of how you think science is relevant to theism. Yes, the natural order provides a platform for freewill to emerge. But theism requires divine intervention within nature.
There's also the problem of natural evil or unnecessary suffering. Even if natural selection is the best mechanism for producing personal, intelligent creatures, we have to ask whether the deity who would choose to create, given the cost, lines up with the Christian's happy-talking portrait of her divine Father. Once we see a discrepancy there, the way is open to showing that nature's amorality is incompatible with all traces of anthropocentrism in philosophy. Theism turns swiftly into mysticism, agnosticism, or atheism.