"David Looser" wrote in
message

On the radio recently someone compared the arguments
between science and religion as being like a fight
between a shark and a tiger.

There is no necessary fight between the two.

Both supreme in their own
environment but each quite out of place in the other.

They share the same environment.

I liked the analogy, religion can talk about morality and the human
spirit

You've missed the point of spirituality, and conflated it with religion. 2
strikes!

but just looks ridiculous when it tries
to present the Bible as a credible account of the
creation or as reliable history.

One of the worst mistakes to make is to try to see the Bible as a historical
or scientific document.

OTOH science is amoral,
it cannot say what is "right" or "wrong".

Science can give valuable insights into what is the best thing to do, all
known things considered. That could be thought of as a kind of ethical
guide.

Personally I have no need of a belief in a supernatural
god to inform my notions of right and wrong,

Hmm, so you hold yourself up as being a good example of a person with good
mastery of right and wrong?

though I understand that other people do.

The obvious implication that you think of yourself as being superior to many
people comes through pretty clearly.

What I don't understand
are those who will reject well-tested science in areas
such as cosmology or evolution in favour of a patently
absurd account of creation from the past just because the
later comes from a "Holy Book".

The people who think that they can find science-grade information about
cosmology or evolution in the Bible are obviously traditionalists who have
not kept up.