Gould tried to reconcile science and faith through his concept of “Non-overlapping magisteria”.
"The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven."
NOMA has the usual mix of those who praise it and those who detest it, but it seems like a reasonable place to start when one talks about the intersection of faith and science.[quote=“loraxx, post:268, topic:36232”]
From my perspective though, discussing YEC or the specific sequence of Genesis or any other biblical claim is irrelevant if there is no evidence. If evidence is not required to believe in christian claims, then christians have the trump card: God did it. Can’t win if the other player has a handful of wild cards.
While we atheists may not accept faith based assertions and beliefs, many of our fellow citizens do. The politics of science are an important part of our society and our future, so I think it is worth understanding where people are coming from and where we are coming from, both scientists and lay people. After all, you can’t do the science without money to fund it, and that money comes from a wide swath of people across the religious spectrum. If you are an atheist and you believe that scientific research should be funded and supported, then theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary creationists as people tend to say on this website) are our best friends.