To start with the second point, I never said that, say, a belief in God and a belief in evolution are incompatible. In fact if there is a God, evolution is the way he/she got things done, as it were. But in that case God would be ultimately responsible for what happens. As such, this case wouldn't differ from my A) position offered in my example.
Originally Posted by DBP
To move to the first point, science could ultimately provide answers to any question but the following: Why is there something rather than nothing? Two answers come to mind. First, there just is, and there's no reason. The second is that something has necessary existence. It exists because it has to exist. The only reasonable candidate for the later is an omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God. Polytheism posits more than one God, but if none of them are omni-competent (which combines the three omni's outlined earlier), then it fails to have the necessary explanatory power, and if one of the gods is omni-competent, then all of the other gods are explanatorily superfluous, and need to be cut out with Occam's Razor.
Deism is the view that God created the universe and then left. Since God is non-physical, God can't leave, since place is a physical property, and God doesn't have any of those, if he or she exists. A deist might reply that God simply isn't paying attention, but that would violate his/her omniscience. There doesn't seem to be another option. Hence, neither is a rationally tenable position.
I'm not sure what you have in mind by "other", and so I can't comment directly.