Your request for clarification of my comments means you must have peered a litle deep into the content. I appreciate that.

Truth is elusive no matter the track followed, and science and religion are at a standstill in their engagement with each other. If there is any final truth in what both are pursuing than by necessity it must be an absolute truth. Time will prove one or the other is right, thus one must already possess absolutes. Both sides argue aritrariness in the other which gets nowhere. The uncertainty both sides experience and attribute to the other can be resolved at a coomon understanding.

Sir, nature is beguiling but it is benevolent. It is coaxing both sides on a particular path whether they know it not, and one or the other is going to have to acquiesce to the other. There is a lot of uncertainty in theoretical physics and the main reason is it is not even known what energy is. It is known to exist by its manifestation but it is reduced to fewer and fewer parts until there are only a few parts, and there may be just one part. Science is approaching the point of encountering that part and it isn't anything like the parts they have managed to construct and label thus far. I am prepared to say there is indeed only one part and it is responsible for everything we experience, and it can be proven with the tools of science, namely math. But that does not mean there is no God that engenders a religious pursuit purposefully, because science is going to discover, and what they are going to confirm, is that energy is an "essence" of something. At that point science will have to acknowledge that existence is greater than ourselves and not the sterile construction that has been manufactured. I suggest science is going to find themselves, genericlly speaking, exactly where religion is. That is the common meeting ground.

This is a little different rendering of what I have said. I hope it helps you out. There is so much more to it, I wish this forum could handle it.