If one were to ask an atheistic evolutionary biologist about the current status or existence of life on this planet, a very tidy theory would be placed in your lap explaining this and that about life. No matter how much supposed evidence one has over the other, at the root, the evidence is still supporting theory, NOT fact. Science has all the makings of a religion if you concede the fact that religion does not necessarily require the notion of a deity.
Religion has answers and searches for the reasons that support their answers.
Yes, yes science has been acused of supplying answers then finding reasons, but that is bad science. It seems to me both Alexis and Mark make good points. I know people often try to demand that the two are irreconcilable, but I disagree. I think the creationism vs. evolutionism argument extant in our class is a good example. Rupert Sheldrake said that Darwin had psychological reasons for labeling nature as only a destructive force, without explaining the origin of the will to live or wonder of creation.