I suspect you didn't even completely read what I said
And you are, as usual, wrong.
but posters like you always provide great opportunities for challenging word processing.
Does that even mean anything?
Let’s see what I can do.
The first paragraph of his that I quoted was from a webpage dated in June, 2008. The first version (hardcover) of his book Finding Darwin’s God was copyrighted in 1999. So the first paragraph that I quoted came many years — about 9 years — after the second paragraph that I quoted. Are we clear so far? I’m going to go way out on a limb here, and assume you have this straight in your mind. I’ll now move on to the next phase of a detailed answer to your question.
In the first paragraph, he claimed he never heard of anyone described as a theistic chemist, obviously because a person’s religion would have no importance/no relationship on a persons desire or ability to study chemistry. He showed a comparison between that term and the term theistic evolution because he was implying that in exactly the same way, a persons religion has no importance, no relationship, no bearing on a persons desire or ability to study evolution.
In the second paragraph (written 9 years earlier, remember) he said it would be nice to PRETEND to be able to study evolution without having an effect (no importance/no relationship) on religion. That there was a clash between evolution and religion. This clash would be the opposite of no importance/no relationship/.The clash would actually indicate an importance, a relationship. In the first paragraph, his message was that there is NO relationship between evolution and religion, and in second paragraph his message was that there IS a relationship between evolution and religion.
Still confused? I’m sure you are, so I’ll continue. When he wrote his book in 1999, he indicated that there was sometimes a controversy between science and religion, that many people who take an interest in one, often tend to question the other. He elaborated on it quite often throughout the book, giving examples of how people like Richard Dawkins use science as a weapon against religion. Or how people like Henry Morris question the exact location of where the line should be drawn, between actual science, and a godless scientific philosophy about events from millions of years ago.
In his more current paragraph from 2008, he simply disregarded all that, by implying that he was mystified by the term theistic evolutionist, like the term wasn’t necessary.
You seem a little confused as to what his message is. I suggest that you read both paragraphs again until you understand them.
In one, he points out, rightly, that there is no particularly theistic way to be a biologist, a chemist, or any other type of scientist.
In the other, he points out, rightly, that evolution has impacted religion.
By pretending that the first paragraph says that "there is NO relationship between evolution and religion", you have managed to create a contradiction that exists in your head but not in his writings, since the first paragraph actually says what it says and not some nonsense that you've made up.
I hope this clarifies matters for you.