Science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world.

I appreciate my opponent's quick response. I will keep this round reasonably short and sweet. First, my opponent clearly cannot keep to his own definitions. To be concise, I emphatically claim that science cannot make universal claims. Any universal claims made--even in the name of science--stray outside the domain of science into philosophy. I do not think he understands what science is despite my sticking firmly to his definition. He has not refuted this argument other than to say that it isn't relevant. Therefore, this contention stands. Second, he does not seem to understand philosophy. Any "fact" obtained through experimentation and empirical observation is science. Any "fact" obtained through reason--be it inductive or deductive--is philosophy. It is for this reason I claim that science is unable to make philosophical claims. He does say in round 2, "I encourage anyone viewing this debate to reread my opening arguments and find where I stated that science could make universal claims about the nature of reality." Okay, how about the first sentence of his first paragraph, "Science and religion are not only different ways of viewing the world; they are incompatible means of viewing the world." How else am I to understand this? He claims that science and religion are conflicting worldviews. Worldviews are inherently philosophical. Besides, whether he said it or not, my opponent still has not refuted my contention that science CANNOT make universal claims. Therefore, this contention stands. Third, he rejects my defining religion to be philosophical. He says, "Religion is more than just philosophical musing; it's a faith with a big promise attached to it." I gave a clear definition of philosophy, and his own definition of religion comports. If he cannot hold to his own definitions, then we cannot have a rational debate. Dismissing my contentions do not refute them, so this contention stands as well. Fourth, he alters the resolution to be "the scientific method is fundamentally in conflict with the methodology behind religion." Given his OWN definitions and arguments, this is impossible. He already stated that science uses reason and evidence whereas religion uses faith and revelation. Therefore, he cannot possibly think the methodologies are in conflict. Does he mean that the conclusions brought about by the methodologies are in conflict? I can't keep up with the moving goal post. Fifth, he speaks about evolution versus an honest reading of Genesis. Again, I refer to my own round 2 example of evolution. The theory of evolution is science. The truth of evolution is philosophy. Therefore, Genesis is only in conflict with evolution insofar as evolution is purported to be objectively true, in which case we have conflicting philosophical assertions. However, Genesis is not incompatible with the science that uses the theory to predict experimental results. Again, the domains are separate according to my opponent's definition of science. Here is my round 2 argument in a rough syllogism: A. Science is an academic discipline using the scientific method B. The scientific method requires direct experimentation C. Science cannot make universal claims D. Philosophy makes universal claims E. Religion makes universal claims F. Universal claims and particular claims are logically compatible G. By substitution, philosophy and science are logically compatible H. By substitution, religion and science are logically compatible Even though he dislikes my approach, I think the readers will agree that I am staying true to his definitions and original resolution. Science and religion are indeed compatible so long as you avoid the fallacy of equivocating science to some kind of philosophy.