This sounds like the morons who accuse atheists of being "as sure" as the fundies they mock without going through the methodology of either.In his latest book, Ruse uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking. Exploring the underlying philosophical commitments of evolutionists, he reveals that those most hostile to religion are just as evangelical as their fundamentalist opponents. But more crucially, and reaching beyond the biblical issues at stake, he demonstrates that these two diametrically opposed ideologies have, since the Enlightenment, engaged in a struggle for the privilege of defining human origins, moral values, and the nature of reality.
My question is why? What motivates someone to try and reconcile religion and science and is it possible (or are they just deluding themselves). Why do people like said author insists on playing the "peacemaker".
There is no way in hell you can reconcile their differing methodologies (Christians who advanced science did so in contradiction to their religions tendency to rely on revelation rather than observation and logic).
Another way is to try and reconcile the "results". In other words science says this, religion also says this if we use leaps of logic to interpret the Bible. This is concentrating on the results and ignoring the method. To me thats like a coach deciding not to replace a crap player with a good one on the grounds that the team still won (or deciding to replace a good player with a crap player if the team still lost).
