Thanks for asking my opinion, Valerie,
My initial response is that Coyne’s thesis is not scientific. 
So I stand by the statements I made in my other post.
There are more ways of knowing other than just science, and scientists of faith accept the multiple ways of knowing. John Lennox makes this case very nicely in his book, Can Science Explain Everything?
Since you like watching videos, here’s one in which it looks like he outlines the arguments he makes in his book:
https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/canscience
Lennox is not compartmentalizing, he is using all his ways of knowing to understand the universe at the deepest level. Eschewing faith does not help science it only narrows our understanding.
Coyne’ quotes
Stephen Jay Gould’s thesis of “non-overlapping magisteria.” Religion and science, he argued, don’t conflict because: “Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values – subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.”<
Coyne says this argument fails. I disagree. Science does fit with my faith. Science would not fit with any and all faiths, but it is fully possible to adhere to methodological naturalism in the laboratory with samples of blood (as Coyne mentions, and as I have done in the laboratory myself) AND also believe that God revealed himself to us by using miracles such as the resurrection of Christ. We understand those events to be miracles precisely because they fall outside of the laws of nature that God created. God used that discrepancy between natural laws and miracles to speak to humanity. Thus, it is fully acceptable for me, as a scientist, to believe that Jesus spilt his blood to save us from our sins (Note that Coyne’s argument against me accepting communion is not a problem for my faith. I am Protestant, so I do not personally believe the communion wine is actually Jesus’ blood)
Coyne’s anti-religion stance seems to be fueled by creationist YEC and ID arguments, because YEC and ID views are objectively not true. Coyne states,
Others argue that in the past religion promoted science and inspired questions about the universe. But in the past every Westerner was religious, and it’s debatable whether, in the long run, the progress of science has been promoted by religion. Certainly evolutionary biology, my own field, has been held back strongly by creationism, which arises solely from religion>
I personally find YEC views to be particularly untenable, because YEC views require one to discard scientific evidence from virtually every field of science.
Thus creationist views are the ones that are causing Coyne to dig in his heals and reject all forms of religion, Christianity included. This is the grave danger of YEC and ID arguments: such YEC and ID views push many people, including scientists, away from the faith. And to what end? Salvation does not require one to adhere to any particular view of creation versus evolution. Salvation requires an understanding of the depth of human sin and salvation requires faith that Christs’ death and resurrection free us from our sin. So YECs and IDists are fighting the wrong battle, creating greater challenges for the faith. Many people raised in YEC churches leave the faith because they wrongly believe their faith requires them to reject mainstream science. In response to hard-lined YEC pastors, I’d quote Matthew 18: 6 ““If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”