[N0B0DY]

I think it's interpretational in the sense that both communities are studying the same circumstantial evidence, but drawing different conclusions as to the scope of the causes. I wouldn't say that it is all that illogical to conclude that a creator is required for the creation of complex systems, much like a creator is required for the creation of a complex computer system. It has been proven that even bacteria are extremely complex and remarkably intelligent.

I think it depends on the religion as well, as some religious texts depict all individuals as existing within god and god within all individuals. The same can be said to apply to the universe. If my religion is based on god being the universe and my church is the whole world, without changing anything whatsoever with respect to the universe, then even atheists would have no choice but to be my fellow churchgoers.

Scientists are brutally honest though, I'll give you that. They are concerned with in-the-box effects and will be the first to admit it, never claiming to know the absolute truth, only what is generally accepted as adequate explanations for certain phenomena. Yet, for me, when out-the-box causes are introduced it often sheds new philosophical light on both religious and scientific interpretations that render preconceived notions obsolete.