In my previous blog, I talked about how religious believers often feel as though they are faced with a lose-lose decision -- science or religion. The Bible, for example, seems to speak of a fairly quick and recent creation by very specific divine interventions -- the creation of light on one day, for example, and the creation of all of the animals just a few days later. Science, on the other hand, speaks of a very slow creation with light, for example, not appearing until 500 million or so years after the Big Bang and animals appearing slowly and through very natural processes billions of years later. Given a forced choice between physics and faith, then, some people choose physics and some people choose faith. I think this lose-lose feeling is rooted in a culturally influential but historically false conception of the relationship between science and religion as one of perpetual warfare. But even if the warfare narrative is false, many religious believers today feel like they are forced to choose between science and religion.
In my new book, Religion and the Sciences of Origins, I offer a Two Book model in place of the warfare metaphor. Here's the basic idea: God speaks to us in the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, and these two books cannot conflict.