It is possible to reconcile any conflict between religion and science by rejecting any claim for which there is no evidence outside of an assertion by an authority.

It is not possible to reconcile a conflict between religion and science where there is a belief in the inerrancy of scripture.

There can be no 'reconciliation' between nonsense and scientific evidence, regardless of how much sugar coating is on the pill. The bible story of creation is nonsense - superstitous rubbish no matter how hard religious apologists desperateely try to find 'allegorical' components within it. No quantity of clericl letters will alter facts.

The never-ending arguments between exoteric religionists and advocates of scientism are not about ideas at all.

All such arguments are competitive struggles and primitive power efforts to capture and control the minds, emotions and bodies of the people altogether.

They are ALL based upon and extended from one or the other ground-pattern of (generally, uninspected, and, therefore, unconscious, or non-conscious)psycho-physical pre-verbally brain and nervous system patterning which is in every case being asserted, defended, protected. or otherwise defended.

Exoteric religion is the institutionalization of collective power seeking tribalized group-identity in its "sacred" form.

Conventional scientism is the institutionalization of the collective power seeking tribalized group-identity in its secular form.

All of the usual "debates" and confrontations are entirely predictable and pre-decided, and always theatrically dramatized programs of propagandistic hyper-statement versus hyper-statement wherein both sides remain insular and aggressively self-preserved.

Both scientism and creationist-religion are institutional power seeking entities that are intent upon controlling the entire human world, and even all of conditional reality.

Both cannot accept any exceptions to their reductionist drive to power and ruler-ship over the entire world.

What is more, the competitive conflicts thus generated are a constant threat to the unity, peaceful order, and practical well-being of humankind as a whole.

This is obviously also the case re the never-ending competitive conflicts between different power seeking exoteric religions--Islam vs Christianity being the most notable, and potentially the most destructive

Here’s the Clergy Statement in full that currently has 12,444 supporting signatures.

“Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.”

Only 3 (of 12) sentences here are controversial for any Christian whom I know.

So let’s focus on these:

Sentences 7, 8 & 11:

“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. ... We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.”

Of these 3 sentences, if the first was true, then the other two would also be compelling. However, if this first sentence is not true, then the others are not very pressing.

So, it seems that the only significant sentence worth discussion is this first one.

“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”

The fact is that there are thousands of credentialed scientists (of different faiths, and of nominal, or no faith) around the world who do not accept that sentence, neither in its parts nor in its totality. Many of these scientists have risked ostracism to challenge the scientific establishment on this alleged ‘foundational truth’.

Michael Zimmerman says he wants to stimulate meaningful discussion, discussion which moves beyond the usual sound bite. So Michael, for your only controversial sentence, are we allowed to discuss that?

Where are we allowed to discuss it, in churches, in universities, in school board rooms, in science classrooms? If in one place, then why not in another? Are we allowed to critique evolution in any manner, or is it so foundational to your thinking that it must remain sacred and beyond criticism?

Michael Zimmerman says he wants to get beyond name calling, yet throws around the word ‘fundamentalism’, somehow forgetting how loaded that term is in this current climate.

continued:

The creationist/rationalist debate is a public theatre of ego-based power games, which pretends to be Truth's own arana of ideas, but which, in fact, is a grossly and merely exoterically dramatized theatre of primitive and irreconcilable confrontation between childish and adolescent fixed modes of ore-verbally brain and nervous system patterned structures of psycho-physical adaptation.

Neither the fixed ideas of the religionists or the advocates of scientism are any more rational, true, or closer to Truth or Reality than the fixed ideas of the opposing other.

The pre-verbally brain and nervous system patterned fixed ideas of exoteric religionists are direct extensions of essentially INFANTILE and CHILDISH dependency patterning.

And in the case of advocates of scientism, direct extensions of failed case entirely ADOLESCENT independence patterning.

In the case of individuals and institutions that argue for a combination of both religionist and scientism views, what is being dramatized and advocated is a middle of the road adolescent-versus-child ambivalence, representing a yet unresolved developmental conflict between infantile/childish dependency and adolescent independence.

In due course, the power of religion to console the infantile and childish ego must be out-grown, and the power of scientific materialism to fascinate and retard the clever adolescent ego which always attempts to defeat the infantile and childish ego, must be outgrown.