Let's just move on. Here's Stephen Jay Gould's spin on this issue and I agree with him:
Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain those facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve. Similarly, while scientists must operate with ethical principles, some specific to their practice, the validity of these principles can never be inferred from the factual discoveries of science.
Source: "Rocks of Ages"
One thing to ponder though: as biosciences and evolutionary psychology/psychobiology progress, more and more of our "psychological needs" like the Need for Meaning have been argued to have biological (hence subject to evolutionary pressures) bases. Maybe, at some point, Gould's dichotomy won't hold. I'll be ready to change my mind once the data rolls in
