Science and Religion: Letters to the SMH

On Friday I wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, anticipating narky responses if the letter was published (like those I received when I wrote that people in the medieval period believed the earth was round). The letter wasn't published, so I'll post it here, in case anyone is interested:

Why is it so hard to accept that someone can “believe” in science as well as in a creator God? The foundations of modern science were laid by people, such as Johannes Kepler and Robert Boyle, who not only believed in God but saw their scientific work as an act of worship and priesthood. Whereas church priests explained the book of God’s word (the Bible) to their parishioners, scientists interpreted the book of God’s works (nature). The existence of God, by definition, is beyond the scope of natural science, but science is not the only form of knowledge. It is quite easy for a religious person to believe that God created the universe, but to look to science to find out how he did so.

Here's the original letter that started this thread of correspondence:

Gerard Henderson's article, "Jews know acceptance still has its exceptions" accuses me personally, and the left in general, of waging a sectarian war on Tony Abbott.
Mr Abbott's obstructionist approach and dog whistle politics are ample material to criticise his contribution to public policy debate without stooping to involve his religious beliefs - which as a Catholic myself, I happen to share.
Our current television campaign, ''Great Deniers'', uses humour to point out the absurdity of those remaining few who still deny the scientific consensus on climate change.
By using examples from the past of ridiculous denial (notably the idea the world is round, not flat), the campaign aims to point out that climate change sceptics will be judged as fools by history.
The point here is climate change, not religion. Denial, not belief. It highlights the absurdity of Mr Abbott's position on this topic and on no other aspect of him.
As a Catholic, I'm fed up with the conservative right claiming a monopoly on Christian beliefs and carrying them heavily on their sleeve.
The carbon price is an incredibly important issue. At stake is the future of our great nation.
Mr Abbott and Mr Henderson should have the courage to engage in this debate rather than trying to detract from the issue with irrelevant shadows.
-Tony Maher National president, CFMEU

And the particular letter to which I was responding:

If you believe in science you can't cherry pick to suit your own convenience. Tony Maher (Letters, July 14) professes to be a believing Catholic while at the same time embracing the scientific consensus on climate change.
At the core of Catholicism - and almost all other religions - is the hypothesis of a creator god. Why, Tony, do you not also accept the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence against creationism? Are those early years of indoctrination too hard to shake off?
- Mike Phillips Wollstonecraft

Here's the letter that was published instead of mine (it is a better letter):

Mike Phillips (Letters, July 15) suggests that Tony Maher has engaged in cherry picking of his beliefs and that there is an inconsistency between accepting climate change science on the one hand and belief in a creator god on the other.
As many theistic scientists will attest, it's a false dichotomy to pit God against science. Scientific inquiry looks at the world and how it works, while theology looks behind the curtain and wonders why it all exists to begin with.
One might look at how the world began, the other at why and by whom the world began. The two disciplines ask and answer completely different questions about life.
Cherry picking? I don't think so. But Mike Phillips might be comparing apples with oranges.
- Andrew Miers Bardwell Valley

And finally one more that was published today:

Your correspondent Mike Phillips (Letters, July 15) would do well to check his facts before rushing into print. Some Catholics do not believe in ''creationism'' - presumably the belief in a literal six days of creation, given this is the usual meaning of the term.
In the first decade of the 20th century the then authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia concluded that Catholics should have no difficulty with Darwin's theory of the evolution of species. More recently Pope John Paul II declared evolution ''more than a hypothesis''.
On the cosmological front the theory of the Big Bang, that the universe originated in a massive ''explosion'' some 15 billion years ago, was first proposed by the Jesuit physicist Georges Lemaitre. Many of his colleagues rejected the idea, despite the evidence, because it seemed too irreligious (sic?) a notion for them. So Catholics have no concern at all about the ''overwhelming weight of scientific evidence against creationism'' and would in fact agree with the science on this matter.
And on global warming, both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI have warned of impending environmental catastrophe and the Vatican state is committed to being carbon neutral.
- Professor Neil Ormerod Faculty of theology and philosophy, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield

I'm wondering if "irreligious" in the third paragraph is a typo - I was under the impression that Lemaitre's physicist colleagues initially rejected the idea of the Big Bang because it seemed too religious, rather than too irreligious. Demonstrating that the universe had a definite beginning, after all, may leave open the question of what/who caused that beginning.