And obviously I am not.
It depends on where you seek that intersection.
If you accept a (fundamentalist) pair of coordinates, then absolutely, there is a great deal of erosion of both science and faith. I would also include erosion of the self, which is another axis that is greatly affected by the first two. I don’t believe a healthy existence is possible at that point.
Thus my lack of interest in science as a (formal, “objective”) apologetic tool.
I think there is a more productive way to understand any intersection of science and faith. Scientific discovery and information helps us make better decisions regarding how we live out our faith. And I think (I am, however, often wrong in my thinking.), the conjoined concept of “science and faith” applied in this way is generous enough to speak both to orthodoxy as well as open faith.
I hope it is, because, whether we like it or not, for those with some form of faith, they really are conjoined in modernity, and separating them … well, I don’t need to explain. You already did.
This is not an easy thing, is it? Particularly, if one is used to holding (tightly to) a fundamentalist understanding of faith and the need to subjugate scientific understanding to it. It feels like making science a god, when one is used to an “All or Nothing” view of the matter and must reside with “Either/Or”. Maybe what I am suggesting is spiritual prostitution as I believe was suggested here. But more intelligent, faithful minds are looking at valuable ways to consider the questions that come up and how faithfilled Christians might navigate them for better or worse.
Your use of “The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love” is about social justice isn’t it? If it really is the only thing that matters, then it makes sense to attempt be more political in our (written) speech and persuasive in our reasoning. That requires connecting dots for those who don’t see the connections. Where there is an interest in science and scientific discovery, then there is supporting information that speaks to the group (the part that is willing to listen) in a way that really can lead to action.
I believe, though, that such work depends on coalition building. We both need to improve our skills there. But maybe that can be done. There’s always more to learn.
We can leave the flood where it lies, because we are not constrained to accept the coordinate pair we believe to be a null set. As postmoderns, we have accepted reception theory, and we can work with it. I think there is good potential for many relevant and practical threads that get to what matters, that also fit within the constraints of this forum.