I leave the matter open. Explanation can be seen as one purpose for certain types of integrative practices. But because of its importance, I make it a category of its own. Richard Bube has complained that my characterization of complementarity is confused and is actually a description of what he calls compartmentalization. For Bube, compartmentalization treats science and theology as different descriptions about different kinds of things with no common ground or possibility of conflict.
Complementarity views science and theology as different descriptions of the same reality.
Unfortunately, Bube is simply wrong in this complaint towards my position. What he calls compartmentalization is close to what I call the two realms view of integration and my description of complementarity is an accurate one. The source of Bube's confusion is revealing. I claim that the complementarity view eschews interaction between science and theology and Bube says that it embraces such interaction. However, Bube equivocates on what interaction' means in this context.