You have to look everywhere
Several yeas ago I read a book about "God and the New Physics" (by Paul Davis - pb.1984, Simon &Schuster). It is a good book, but selectivity is rampant in it. In all what the author lists as blatant contradiction between science and religion he mainly uses the Old and the New Testaments. Although he mentioned Islam in the beginning, he never took Islam's view in the matter into consideration.
No where is this selectivity so obvious than when searching for the "Truth" about how we and our universe were created and about our relationship with the "Creator". Scientists and Theologians are searching for the same "Truth" each from a different angle and with different tools. However, no matter how different are the angles or the tools, there are few basic principles that they both theoretically share. Both say that they rely mainly on "Logic" And "Evidence". Of course that "Evidence" relies heavily on an element of "faith". The scientists have faith in their methods and results and theologians have faith in the people who relayed the words of God to them. Unfortunately in most discussions, they both selectively pick and chose their "Logic" and their "Evidence".
Because of this selectivity, they both find contradictions and incompatibilities either within the other’s view or between their view and the other’s view. This is because sometimes incomplete truths or falsehoods are used and sometimes ignoring logic entirely is used.
I was reminded of that book while following recent dicussions here on JU about God, Good, Bad ....etc and I can safely say that the author of that book, as a scientist, usually uses All the facts available to him whenever he discusses any purely scientific topic. Considering the known fact that a good deal of human input went into the writings of both of the OT and the NT while Qura'an is considered (by Muslims) to be the direct and literal words of God, it is very strange that the author ignores a source that claims to be the actual words of God and relies solely on the two texts that don’t claim that. If he had included Qura'an in his discussion, ALL the contradictions that he pointed out would have been resolved.
For Example: The famous contradiction is the age of the Universe. All of the three Books say it was created in Six Days. The OT and the NT say nothing further than that. and it is understood by both religions as just "Six Days". This is obviously in clear contradiction to the scientific evidence that to go from the instant of the Big Bang (the light as it is called in the three books) when creation started to where you have seven heavens, stars, planets and moons you need billions of years. Had he consulted the third book, he would have realized that there really is no contradiction. Qura'an clearly says in many separate verses the Following: one time it says "And the Day of your Lord is 100,000 years of what you count". and in another verse it says "And the Day of your Lord is 50,000 years of what you count", and still in another it says "And the Day of you Lord is 20,000 years of what you count". It is amazing that more than 1425 years ago, there was a book talking about the relativity of time and its changing duration depending on where you are. Those "Six Days of your Lord" could easily be the billions of years of what we count that are needed for the universe to reach the point when Adam was created i.e. when there was Earth. No contradiction there.
Another example is the God/Adam/Eve/Snake (Satan) conflict. The OT/NT narrative presents many problems: why were Adam and Eve being tested? Did they have a choice in the matter? Why did Satan deceive Eve and Adam? and many other logical questions. Of course OT/NT believers have answers to these questions, but all these answers are not based on God's own words. It is based on the interpretation of the human input into the two books. and the answers themselves pose many logical questions.
However, Qura'an claims to be the literal and direct words of God, so at least he should have checked what it says about that conflict. If he had done that, he would have found that All the questions that he posed have a very logical answer in Qura'an's narrative
Religion/Science debate is not the only arena where incomplete information or biased one sided view clouds the vision of whoever is looking for any "Truth" . This distortion exists in most of what people generally discuss and that makes it almost impossible to reach a general agreement on any thing no matter how simple it is.
I don’t know if this is intentional bias in order to discredit the other's view or is it just natural tendencies to prove ourselves right and the others wrong regardless of the situation