True enough.
And their concern is fair enough, if one takes my I hope helpful
oversimplification as an exhaustive philosophical statement.
I.e., I think it's clear that Christianity focuses more on God, morality,
the soul, etc., than on quantum mechanics, the age of the earth, the
mechanism of creation, and so forth.
But it's also clear that there is an interface between these things, that
they are something like two ends of the spectrum rather than two wholly
different worlds.
E.g., the soul -- classic metaphysics, right? Well, perhaps, but a
scientistic brain scientist (v., say, a non-scientistic brain scientist)
would consider "physics" (i.e., natural science) to have demonstrated beyond
a reasonable doubt that there's no such thing. That would be simplistic. of
course, but it -does- seem true that more naive versions of Cartesian
dualism are much less plausible today than in the past, the physics
combining with philosophical argument to imply that the naive metaphysics in
question is defective.
Or freedom and morality-- scientism (again, not science) would say both are
illusory, the former by demonstration, the latter by implication. (Indeed,
one of the many things that makes scientism quite implausible is that it
would even eliminate consciousness, I think: a holdover from folk
psychology, a formerly useful but now useless fiction, like belief in
witches, goblins, etc., and scientifically ridiculous. Consciousness is,
wrt hard science, a wholly superfluous hypothesis.)
What bridge the two worlds are logic and intuition, two of the broader
rational faculties that are key foundations of science, but by no means
identical with it. Some pseudo-hard-headed scientists want to reject
intuition as too fuzzy and too unreliable. If all they mean is that we
shouldn't shoot from the hip or let casual conjectures overcome hard data,
they're obviously right; but taken literally their claims are
self-stultifying, since science rests utterly upon intuitions, old and new.
So physics and metaphysics properly shape each other; the shaping is not at
all simply in one direction (from hard science to speculative metaphysics,
say -- sometimes it is just that way, but other times it isn't).
So Christians (et al) who would say my recommendation is an
oversimplification are right -- but I think it's a useful one. I'd like to
see a better 4-word alternative. :^>
John