Failed to understand "it's striking"

Yep, typo. Should be striking is used..
The jail guard, the ballerina are stereotypes. When you don't expect something, it strikes you as odd. Like contrex said, it stands out.
but there are on creationists in the OP
I don't know what this means..

Surprising? Evolutionary biology and fundamental physics are just must-do routine tasks for scientists.

there are on creationists in the OP

Would anyone like to tell me what does "on creaionists" mean?

evolutionary biology and fundamental physics

Quote:

there are on creationists in the OP

Quote:

Would anyone like to tell me what does "on creaionists" mean?

Two typos, this should no doubt be "no creationists in the OP".

I don't know what OP refers to here, but you seem to know.
A creationist is a christian who has a literal belief in the teachings of the Bible, which tells how God created the earth and all living things in it.
This belief is at odds with Darwinian theory of evolution.

Isn't the OP obviously and usually referring to the openning post?

roger wrote:

evolutionary biology and fundamental physics

Eh? Hard to understand "Is there really any serious argument between the two? " now.
"Is there really any serious argument between evolutionary biology and fundamental physics?"
Every branch of science obeys scientific laws. To ask a question like this is very confusing.
But if the two refers to science and religion, it is understandable.

PS. What does "which" refer to in "These, at least superficially, appear to be the territories where science and religion can make conflicting claims, leading us to ask which has the better case"? Science or religion?

leading us to ask which has the better case"? Science or religion?

Quote:

leading us to ask which has the better case"? Science or religion?

Which?

a) science, or
b) religion

But are they alternatives? Is there really any serious argument between the two?

The science-religion debate has been going on since science was born, centuries ago. Until relatively recently, it seemed to have quietened down, but now Hawking and others have brought it back into the limelight. It's striking that the scientists who contribute most vociferously to the arguments work in the field of evolutionary biology and fundamental physics. These, at least superficially, appear to be the territories where science and religion can make conflicting claims, leading us to ask which has the better case. But are they alternatives? Is there really any serious argument between the two?