Arguments about science and religion being compatible seem silly to me. On the one hand, they are two different “ways of knowing” (I’m trying to be charitable to religion here) and people use both of them to make claims about the natural world. It seems that by definition they could produce different conclusions and therefore are irreconcilable.
On the other hand, few actually seem to look at it like that. Why would you? There’s no reason to ever accept a conflict. If the history of religion says anything, it’s that it can say whatever you want it to. If you want it to justify slavery, it does. If you want it to justify abolitionist impulses, it can. Civil rights? Gay marriage? Scientific progress? Murder? Pacifism? You can use it to justify whatever side of whatever issue you want. That’s ignoring the phenomenon of rejecting scientific findings that conflict with your religion, too. There’s no actual logic involved with religion, so changing your mind doesn’t invalidate anything. You were just wrong. I’m not saying that’s easy, just that you’re only rethinking a conclusion, not a process.
To an atheist, the former is fairly obvious. But it’s a perverse perspective to have if you’re religious. So I don’t think those debates are particularly interesting.