We need to rethink the purported conflict between science and religion. In his wonderful book Unapologetic Theology, William Placher makes the following observation:
Many of the “conflicts” between science and religion result from theologians trying to be scientists or scientists engaging in speculative philosophy, and it is important to get clear on the appropriate range of each field. The defenders of creation science, and Carl Sagan in his speculations about the meaning of it all, seem to me equally guilty, from opposite sides, of confusion in such matters. Both are claiming professional authority to speak of matters beyond their professional competence. Still, here too it seems too simple to say that religious faith and science address totally different questions and therefore can never be in conflict and need never be in dialogue.
Placher is writing from a postliberal perspective that wants to take the internal logic of Christian language with utmost seriousness. Thus, for him and others of this perspective, it is a first-order mistake to try and do science with the language of theology, or to bend Christian habits of speech to purely scientific discourse. Science has its own methods and language, and to co-opt that language is to do damage to both (as creation science bastardizes both science and theology). Likewise, when otherwise intelligent scientists like Richard Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson begin to wax about theology and philosophy, using the tools of science to draw conclusions on questions outside their competency, they too misunderstand the limits of their own field.
Note that this isn’t as simple as an elitist argument or a “stay in your own lane” warning, but a recognition of different modes of discourse. This is especially true in the ongoing, overblown, conflict between science and faith. Because if Placher is correct, the conflict consists not so much in opposing worldviews or goals, but in simply talking past one another.
And really, isn’t there enough of that already in today’s world?