""As I understand the Faulkner article, the bottom line for him is that he will accept anything as a robust scientific theory, or as a viable hypothesis, IF he doesn't perceive a conflict with young earth creationism.""

Well, the scientist/author made it clear in the article that he is a person with a belief in a Chrustian God. As there is a lack of certainity in science, (and among those who develop theories about the origion of the universe and how it operates and moves forward)- it seems reasonable that this uncertainty leaves christian scientists with room to maintain their belief within their professional science field, versus compartmentalizing, as another poster suggested.

IMO, what separates Pete from this scientist, is he is well educated in science, seems to understand it well, and works in a science field related to the topic. As a scientist, unlike Pete, I suspect he accepts the scientific understanding of "evolution" witnin his religious belief. While Petes claim is made, IMO in opposition to fairly reliable scientific research conducted first hand-here on earth, (as opposed to theories made by scientists on the expanse of the universe, where no man has ventured).

This is confounding to views put forward by some, that only those who have little understanding of science (the uneducated) could have a belief in "a God".