Science and religion have always been in something of a conflict.   Science seeks to explain the world according to natural laws while religion leaves larger questions as articles of faith.    There is some overlap - 40% of AAAS member scientists in their recent survey are also religious - but AAAS covers a broad cross-section of scientists whereas biology is ground zero for a conflict with religion over man as we exist today and how we came to be.  So there is less overlap in the life sciences but there have been ongoing attempts to reconcile the two camps, usually with scientists conceding that whatever 'sparked' life has no basis in current data so it is left to philosophy or religion as well.

Certainly attempts to mix religion and science have not worked - biologists agree we do not know enough to create a natural theology anyway and sectarian viewpoints being thrown into science classes under the guise of 'teaching the controversy' are just silly.   Even other religions disagree with attempts to inject a religious viewpoint into science classes, since it would be teaching done Monday through Friday they would have to undo Saturday and Sunday, if I can paraphrase Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, who has been in this battle as long as I can remember.

Still, some articles on the matter are going to be interesting and I recently read one.   Writing in The Biologos Forum: Science And Faith In Dialogue,  Ard Louis, theoretical physicist and Royal Society University Research Fellow at the University of Oxford,  notes that there is a disconnect among scientists and religious people, though not always where they think.    He notes that the word 'evolution' has become more colloquial, and has acquired three meanings:

1. Evolution as natural history: The earth is old and the kinds of organisms that populate our world have changed over time.

2. Evolution as a mechanism: A combination of variation and natural selection helps explain the structure of the observed change over time in natural history.

3. Evolution as a worldview: Evolution as a way of seeing the world and extracting meaning from it. See e.g. George Gaylord Simpson’s famous quote: Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.

A few religious people object to number one, though nowhere near as many as atheist detractors like to infer.  Natural selection was a concern, even to fellow biologists in the 19th century, yet today surprisingly few religious people object to its actual precepts - if it is called something else.  Number three is where the militant atheists live - and their zealotry on the matter greatly resembles anti-religious fundamentalism and certainly religious people object to that.   'Mechanism' and 'meaning' have been a problem for some on each side since 1859.

But some scientists take objection to any above as being objection to all evolution or even all biology.  In reality, people are much more nuanced than that and while some will use number two as the reason for number three, that doesn't mean number three invalidates number two.

Part of the goal of the series there on "Addressing Christian Concerns About the Implications of BioLogos’ Science" seems to be reconciling science and religion though, as I said in the beginning, we are not there yet.   It may be philosophically valid to claim that aspects of biology self-assemble and so a deity could have created them with that in mind but not scientifically valid - biologists disagree en masse and object even more to the notion that evolution started with a goal.   And stochastic methods could lead to thinking of evolution as optimization, but that is curve-fitting science into a religious worldview also, instead of letting science be science and the intersections between them happen where they can.

I applaud the effort, and it's good that people are trying to show ways in which science and religion peacefully co-exist, but evolution as natural theology will need to be fleshed out a lot better than is possible today.   Obviously if that is ever to happen requires some patience on both sides and completely ignoring the fringes.   As Mark Noll stated in "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind", Evangelicals have a wide range of virtues but careful engagement with the intellectual world is not usually one of them, and ironically the 'blind watchmaker' of Richard Dawkins is a closer argument for natural theology than he suspects.     So there is hope for the cultural future once those gaps are bridged but as we understand more and more about science and as neuroscience attempts to converge on the soul, it may be that evolution simply stops being the focus of religious detractors because something else takes its place.