Just yesterday, I sat across from a fellow wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the image of a gun-wielding Jesus blowing away Charles Darwin above the words "EVOLVE THIS!" At first I assumed he wore it to emphatically signal his belief that religion, specifically Christianity, refutes science, specifically biological evolution. Then, remembering that Jesus probably wouldn't have used a handgun even had they been available in his day, I took the shirt as a mockery of the blunter varieties of creationist rhetoric. Looking it up later, I found out that the shirt comes from the movie Paul, so the wearer probably meant nothing more than to express his appreciation for what I understand to be one of 2011's most underrated comedies. Yet the question lingers: has science refuted religion, or is it the other way around? The internet age provides us access to a virtually unlimited number of these debates, although you'll often search in vain for matches of cogent, well-articulated arguments. Just take a look at the science-religion squabbles currently roiling in YouTube comment sections. Keep out of the comments, then, and stick to the videos, such as the debate above. In two hours comprising short segments of argument, rebuttal, cross-examination, and audience questions, the program pits Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer and Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll against MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson and King's College president Dinesh D'Souza. In an unusually orderly, well-disciplined debate of this type, all four weigh in on one central proposition: "Has science refuted religion?" Carroll says that science, a "reality check" on human biases, offers the only explanations that work. Hutchinson blames not science but something he calls "scientism," a belief in the absolute supremacy of scientific knowledge, for a variety of social and intellectual ills. Shermer describes religious belief as an evolutionarily determined characteristic of human beings, and an increasingly useless one at that. D'Souza upbraids science for failing not only to find answers to questions about human purpose and life's meaning, but for throwing up its hands when presented them. All this offers a good bit of human drama as well, but in good fun; when I interviewed Shermer, a habitué of such debates, he mentioned often enjoying taking his ostensibly sworn intellectual enemies to beers and pizza afterward. Related Content: Richard Dawkins & John Lennox Debate Science & Atheism Does God Exist? Christopher Hitchens Debates Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Animated: Stephen Fry & Ann Widdecombe Debate the Catholic Church Colin Marshall hosts and produces Notebook on Cities and Culture. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall.