Oh, I should point out that I can’t take credit for xJane’s post. But I think that we don’t cover this complexity often enough. I tend to feed into the binary opposition with my anti-creationist rants.

The push and pull between the two have fascinated me ever since I realized that there is not a harmonious coexistence in many people’s minds. And I’ve read some interesting things on both sides of the debate. Stephen Jay Gould’s “Rocks of Ages” is a good introduction to his idea that science and religion are what he called “non-overlapping magesteria” and don’t really have much of value to say to each other.

On the other hand, Sir John Polkinghorne has some interesting things to say about the side of the argument which holds that science and religion do have things to say to each other. Polkinghorne comes at it from an interesting perspective: he was a physicist in his first career, then after he retired he became an Anglican priest. While I don’t accept some of his premises, I found his work to be thought-provoking, which I think is always a good thing.

I think, John, that among those on both sides of the divide between science and religion, you are right that those who take a hard line against the opposite side need to just agree to disagree and move on rather than each side trying to demonize the other (and that does go on on both sides from time to time). But, as you say in your comment, it is a hugely complex topic that doesn’t get the play it deserves in the media and so most people are left with the (mistaken) impression that all religious people hate science and all scientists hate religion. I know that isn’t true, and it kind of bothers me that so many people believe that it is.