While theologians may wish to spend their time coming up with religious perspectives that are 100% compatible with what scientists observe (and theorize), there is no room (or need) for "science" that includes supernatural powers as an explanatory mechanism in theorizing. And in this sense there simple is no "theistic evolution" as a scientifically viable brand of evolution.
By the way, to which theologians are you referring?
I didn't word this very well. And I don't even know if I'm using "theologians" in the same sense that scholars of religion use the term. I get the feeling that "theologians" are a particular subspecialty within religious studies. I suppose I'm using it to mean those scholars who are exclusively concerned with the logic or consistency of purely religious arguments/positions. I see this as a brand of philosophy.
Anyway, what I was trying to say was that it is possible to come up with a religious position that is 100% compatible with current scientific observation and in that sense cannot be rejected as untrue. I suppose a lot of this would fall into the "god in the gaps" idea. That god set-off the Big Bang is such a position. That god caused the laws of nature to be the way they are (and evolution to work the way it does) is such a position.
Only in this sense can science and religion be compatible.
PS. Hvernon, in response to your just posted post, you've done an admirable job of presenting what is clearly a minority position here. And you have all my respect.
