For the record the 2 began integrated. They diverged with time as the reality science unveiled further disagreed with the assertions of religion.

Evolution doesn't have a cutting edge, right.?

No way. This sort of concept is nothing new and largely a failure. Religion = Mythology & Woo nonsense = doesn't merit mention in the same breath as science. Jordan Peterson is great on just about every topic EXCEPT religion. I find it curious though that Psychology and therapists such as Dr. Drew Pinsky, seemingly are not seen more often as a more empirically based path away from "religion". And I'll admit that I didn't watch the video link when I saw Peterson's name.

This sounds like a typical illogical atheist statement that "thinks" there is just now, at this time in history a merger of "science " and what illogical atheist want to call modern "religion ". I think illogical atheist are behind times and yet trying to get evolutionarily, cognatively, and intellectually caught up with what has been known for 1000s of years.

Understanding ruach is a force not a ghost and that elohim is about positive and negative electrons and protons and that people are gods. a more accurate translation might be "the force of kinetic energy of photons and electrons hovering over the waters Genesis 1:2 Is a person's start of cognative awareness that develops into their body.

cog·nate
/ˈkäɡˌnāt/
LINGUISTICS

(of a word) having the same linguistic derivation as another; from the same original word or root (e.g., English is, German ist, Latin est, from Indo-European esti ).

2. FORMAL
   related; connected.

"cognate subjects such as physics and chemistry"

synonyms:associated, related, connected, allied, interconnected, linked, coupled, correlated;

similar, like,alike, comparable, parallel,equivalent, corresponding,analogous, homologous

"cognate subjects such as physics and chemistry"

John 1:1 In the beginning was the word(logos), the word(logos) was with God and was God.
John 1:14 ... the word(logos) become flesh.(a person)

Biblical theme not yet much understood is that the causation/creation of Jesus character was of the thought and spoken words of the people as documented in the old testiment. So, the true debate of Jesus character is: can what a group or cultural of people think and speak for 1000s of years become a person in the flesh.

Word translation from logos. Though/word cognitive capabilities.

Because many "Chruchy religios"of early times didn't understand biblical theme, nor did they understand physics and chemistry, they formed a "divine " definition for what "word" was supposed about.
Strong’s Definitions

λόγος lógos, log'-os; from G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):—account, cause, communication, ×concerning, doctrine, fame, × have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, × speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

So each person is like their own "bang" singularity from the scientific myth of the big bang.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

People are God-words with each a "bang" cognative awareness beginning?

I'm convinced that we seek a narrative that explains the world around us to our satisfaction. When it is challenged then we explore. The more we learn, the more it is challenged. Some people just stay ignorant.

I’m fine being a square. Thanks.

It goes to the rationale that we are happier when we are stupid; until we reach maximum stupid and put a destructive dufuse in charge.

I would question the science behind John Veraeke's stance. Psychology isn't the same as geology or physics. Some still question whether it is a science at all. This is a nice 'happy ever after' idea.

This is probably why I stay back away from the cutting edge.

If there's such a thing as rationally-based religion, it would cease to be religion and just be- more science.

Religion is just bad science, couldn't study enough to find a factual reason for whatever so they just applied a god.

I thought you knew better! There is no compatibility b/t science & religion; the natural with the supernatural; the factual with fiction.

I've not seen the link. But I'm not convinced that integrating science with made up with stories, and thousands of stories, is a good idea. Humans have evolved just fine without religions, which are a modern phenomenan relative to the age of life on earth itself.

Religion is faith based or maked belief. Science is evidence based to understand reality.

Science is a religion to some, religion is a science to others.

You can't integrate two philosophies that are mutually exclusive. Full Stop.