[troutman]

I think we've discussed NOMA before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[1] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[1] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[1]

Richard Dawkins has criticized the NOMA principle on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, steer clear of the material scientific matters that Gould considers outside religion's scope.

Although a fervant supporter of Gould's works, Francis Collins also criticised the limits of NOMA, believing that science, religion, and other spheres have "partially overlapped," though agrees with Gould that morals, spirituality, and ethics cannot be determined from naturalistic interpretation. [7]

I think Collins has it right.

Other views of NOMA:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria

This theory is demonstrably faulty because it is obvious that the intelligent design of the universe would leave behind perceptible evidence allowing the existence of God to be inferred without reference to faith. Furthermore the NOMA principle would directly contradict Biblical evidence of miracles which if observable by scientists would be demonstrably true.

To embrace NOMA would be to consign the entirety of scripture to metaphor and storytelling.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Debate:...correctness%3F

http://libcom.org/library/creationev...?quicktabs_1=0

This NOMA principle is used in much of the NCSE literature as an attempt to persuade religious believers than evolution poses no threat to their religious faith.

http://www.naturalism.org/Can%20Scie...an%202007).pdf

Several prominent scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions have argued that science cannot test supernatural worldviews on the grounds that (1) science presupposes a naturalistic worldview (Naturalism) or that (2) claims involving supernatural phenomena are inherently beyond the scope of scientific investigation. The present paper argues that these assumptions are questionable and that indeed science can test supernatural claims. While scientific evidence may ultimately support a naturalistic worldview, science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a priori commitment, and supernatural claims are amenable to scientific evaluation.