…[S]pecific findings of science are at odds with some commonly held religious views. In particular, evolution at least appears to conflict with certain doctrines that are commonly held among Christians. That this is so is not controversial even among Christian thinkers, as evidenced by the vast literature struggling to show the conflicts are only illusory.

Now, I think the specific arguments made in this literature are mostly unconvincing on their merits… There is, however, a more general problem that I have with many such reconciliation efforts. It is this: All too often the would-be reconciler imagines his job to be complete when he has shown that science and doctrine do not flatly contradict each other. This is setting the bar rather low. The real issue is whether a plausible and satisfying reconciliation can be achieved.

A good example is Adam and Eve. Science points rather strongly to the conclusion that they did not exist. However, that they were actual human beings who really lived is central both to the message of the New Testament and to the doctrine of original sin. To the extent that such things are important to your conception of Christianity, you will need to address this problem…

…Reconciling science and religion in a satisfying way requires more than tossing off logically possible scenarios. Those scenarios have to at least be plausible, and some concrete reason must be given for thinking they are correct. I say this because all such scenarios must compete with an obvious alternative scenario.