Any scientific method that contradicts culture should be banned.
What do you mean by this? If by this you refer to unethical scientific practices (like the Tuskeegee experiment, or like the Nazi medical experiments), then I agree with you. But in this you're talking about ethical decisions and not procedural methodology. So I don't know that logically there is a way for a scientific method to contradict culture. Does culture have a method?
Any religion that denounces science is flawed because science advocates god and god advocates science.
Where does science advocate god? I sure read a lot of scientific literature and I've never seen that. It would be a very non-scientific position to make a statement about god.
Science is something that uncontrolled leads to randomness and therefore disaster.
Science is a tool. It's the political and entrepreneurial people who use
science who need to be controlled, not science itself. Science is a cultural weathervane.
If explosive technology can lead to both cars and to carpet bombs, if microbiology can lead to both medical cures and biological warfare, then it's really not the science itself that's at fault. It's no coincidence of course that science goes into producing weapons during wartime. It's the stream of influence and funding that pushes its way into science from the outside. That's why since the anthrax attacks in 2001 the federal government put RIDICULOUS amounts of money into smallpox research, a disease that hasn't touched a single person in 30 years, and yet tens of thousands of Americans get influenza every year and we have chronic vaccine shortages. Science is expensive, so scientific endeavors follow the funding stream.