Non-overlapping magesteria

[watchamadoodle]

I think the motive for such a step is more pragmatic than it is an attempt at saying something literally true. The idea is to get the religious nut cases to stop making ridiculous claims about biology and other matters of scientific interest, and so a kind of truce is declared by putting forth the idea that religion and science are so fundamentally different that they should not attempt to say anything about each other.

That's an important point. The Wikipedia article mentions similar motivation:

In a speech before the American Institute of Biological Sciences, Gould stressed the diplomatic reasons for adopting NOMA as well, stating that "the reason why we support that position is that it happens to be right, logically. But we should also be aware that it is very practical as well if we want to prevail." Gould argued that if indeed the polling data was correct—and that 80 to 90% of Americans believe in a supreme being, and such a belief is misunderstood to be at odds with evolution—then "we have to keep stressing that religion is a different matter, and science is not in any sense opposed to it," otherwise "we're not going to get very far."

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

Personally, I don't think religious belief is so prevalent that science needs to fear treading on sacred subjects. Poll results can depend on the wording of the questions, and belief in a supreme being does not imply opposition to evolution and other scientific views. The actual percentage of Americans rejecting evolution seems to be 33% according to Pew Forum ( http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publi...evolution/ ). In my experience, even 33% is an exaggeration. Many people say they reject evolution, because their church rejects evolution, but as a practical matter they believe in evolution. Either they have a lot of cognitive dissonance, or they believe that God created humans through evolution.