The "tree of knowledge" concept might well be at the center of this conflict. On a continuum, rabbits and plants might have some level of knowledge. However, "human" knowledge is special. Religions largely profess that knowledge comes from a deductive process (a Bible or a vision revealed). 

A different concept of knowledge is that it is a gradual process of inductively exploring, discovering, testing ideas, and shaving away misunderstandings. Humans (with the cerebral cortex and the opposable thumb) have shown considerable merit in gradually getting rid of incorrect ideas (such as superstitions) and moving toward better understandings of our surroundings and ourselves. Knowledge ... changes. Like tree branches, each new frontier brings even more new questions to explore. How different this is from accepting superstitions. A key concept is "evidence". Inadequate knowledge (superstitions) are best left behind. Will successful human societies rely upon superstitions? or evidence?