I was impressed by your question because I had a similar experience along the last 5 years.
I'm also an academic (I work in scientific institution),and before changing institution and job, I was also used to be 'cut into pieces' during the lunch I had with my colleagues because they are also "science-is-the-ultimate-answer" people, and criticized me a lot.
Well, I think there are two different kind of approach to talk about God and faith, when talking with non - believers:
- the philosophical/academic approach
- the personal experience approach
In the Philosophical or Academic approach you talk about doctrine, faith, philosophy, view of the world, historical facts. In this sense, you can find very valuable resources in this forum, like the good answer of @aceinthehole. I can contribute just suggesting you to read this Enciclical letter, Fides et Ratio, from the former Catholic pope John Paul II, which in its foreword explains the spirit of the book saying "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth".
Science is not in contrast with faith at all, because God created us, created also our brains and gave us the responsibility to use them.
Using science for proving or disproving the existance of God is something that many tried to do in the past, but unfortunately it cannot be studied by science because He is not a natural phenomena, He has 'his toughts', 'his freedom'... He's an existing and living being.
I differ a bit from what @aceinthehole was saying because I do not agree that God or 'what God does' is not empirically observable. On the contrary it is (think about the miracles), the great problem is that it is not repeatable.
So, we have observability but not repeatability --> it is out the scope of what science can study.
In general, this kind of approach is good (in the sense that it can bring to a REAL dialgue) if you have the resources (I mean if you studied a bit philosphy and history) and if the people you talk with are really willing to discover something about faith (this is more or less my view of the episode of Nathanale in the Gospel of John 1, 43).
The personal experience approach. After years of being murdered by the number of criticism by my colleagues, I understood the following things which are valid in the most of the cases (NOT ALL):
The most of times, non-believers in science field have many prejudices about believers and faith. They think it is something silly, for kids, for which you don't have to think and use your intelligence. This is for a number of reasons:
1.1 their knowledge about faith is - in many cases, NOT ALL cases - the knowledge of a 14 years old guy, because they stopped to follow the church because it was "not cool" during their adolescence. Hence, there is a huge problem of understanding each other. Maybe that if you talk about participating to a cult (or mass) you think about relationship with God, while a non believer thinks about loosing 1 hour of his time in doing something meaningless. These 'onthology' and semantic problems have to be taken into account.
1.2 some non-believers think that believing means do not use only your brain as an approach to reality and it scares many. you have to trust
1.3 Non - believers in science field, are often angry with churches for what they did in the past. Which can be reasonable, even if in my experience this criticism is exasperated and exagerate
Very very often at least in the case of my working place, when non-believers talk about faith, God and all those matters, they are actually talking about something else. You can even arrive to demonstrate that God exists. Well, do you think something would change? I can say that a few people would be interested in this. Mostly, they had bad experiences with the church, priests. They received some uncorrect informations about faith by the medias (newspapers, tv...). So, often they are talking about their personal experience, some blessure they had in the past from church-people.
Some non believers think that reason and science are against faith. Many thinks that faith has to do with feelings or abstract things. This conception is false in my opinion. As an exaple I can cite a colleague of mine becaming a believer because, during his PhD in biophysics, because he was amazed about the physics laws which where behind the behaviour of the cells in contact with a metal target.
In conclusion of this long (sorry!) answer, I hence come back to your question and your 7 points.
Concerning your question, I would say that science can be used as a path which lead to the the experience of God. It cannot be the only instrument which lead to him because the experience of God covers us entirely (mind, spirit, body).
Concerning your 7 points, my comment is that I would concentrate only on the last three, which I agree with. The first thing I would do is to listen, rathern than trying to demonstrate that God exists. Secondly, I would try to understand if they really refer to the subject they are talking about or it's just a consequence of some other hidden issue.
Then I would talk about this "hidden issue". There is an high probability that this hidden issue do not only implies 'science' but also more personal issues.
When I succeded in doing this, I discovered that my colleagues were much more open to a dialogue and that it was very fruitful both form them and for me.
I would really trash away any theoretic discussion because they do not lead to nothing if they are not linked to our lives. Faith is indeed, in last analysis, something that deals with our lives, not an academic matter of discussion.
I apologize for the long and personal answer, but this is the fruit of my experience and thinking.