In order to examine the rationality of the belief in the “disparity in the relationship between science and religion in the cases of evolutionary biology and cosmology,” this article focuses on evolutionary biology, cosmology, and religion (theology) from the perspective of epistemic entities. Accordingly, the disparity between these epistemic entities refers to the difference in the way they logically align with each other. Initially, the approach and assumptions accepted for establishing this argument are explained. In this section, it is clarified that the approach of this article is to present an evidential argument, and its most important assumption is the epistemic independence of evolutionary biology and cosmology from each other. Additionally, it is explained that by religion, the belief in the existence of a concept of God that implies the purposiveness of divine action is meant. Subsequently, the main middle term of this argument, which is the analysis of the implications of evolutionary biology and cosmology for purposiveness, is discussed in detail. In this discussion, purposiveness is precisely defined, and the content of existing and conventional theories and models in evolutionary biology and cosmology is considered, rather than the philosophical debates of biology or cosmology or philosophical interpretations of theories. Thus, the content of the premises of the argument is obtained, and its conclusion is presented at the end of this section. However, due to the fundamental nature of this claim, the logical-formal structure of the argument used to support the claim is explained further. This formal structure, which is explained based on the logic of probabilities, clarifies the degree of validity of the conclusion and the type of relationship between it and the premises. Following this, some of the important implications of this conclusion are mentioned.
Keywords
Relationship between Science and Religion, Theology, Evolutionary Biology, Cosmology, Guidedness
1.     Introduction
The application of the term “Science and Religion Relationship” in the current era has gained a refined and specific meaning since the mid-1960s. The establishment and publication of the journal Zygon and the release of Ian Barbour's book Issues in Science and Religion (1966) both in 1966 symbolize the beginning of a prolific period of philosophical discussions and intellectual explorations concerning the relationship between science and religion from that time to the present. In this article, the relationship between science and religion will be considered in the context of these discussions.
In one sense, this beginning has undergone two stages up to today. The first stage, starting from the 1960s and extending to around 1990, is characterized by a holistic view concerning the relationship between science and religion. By holistic view, it is meant that during the specified historical period, the relationship between science and religion is considered as a general category, and efforts are made to analyze the description of this relationship (e.g., independence or conflict). The second stage of the discussions, starting from the 1990s and continuing to the present, analyzes the relationship between specific theories in science and specific notions in theology in detail (De Cruz 2022, sec. 1.1. & 3). The following titles are examples from the discussions of the past three decades:

The theory of evolution, the doctrine of creation, and the existence of an intelligent designer
Fundamental constants in cosmology and the fine-tuning of the universe
Quantum uncertainty, specific divine action, and miracle
Chaos theory and divine action
Complexities of natural hierarchies and the afterlife

Similarly, during this period, the discussions in the philosophy of science regarding biology and physics have become specialized. From the famous debate by J. J. C. Smart about biology not being a science (Smart 1959, 365–67) to the distinction between the two fields of the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology and their further detailed development as separate disciplines, all pertain to the same period and have paralleled discussions on science and religion. These two historical trends form the academic and specialized literature background for the subject of this article.
To examine the rationality of the belief in a "Disparity in the Relationship of Science and Religion in the Two Cases of Evolutionary Biology and Cosmology," this article considers evolutionary biology, cosmology, and religion (theology) from the perspective of epistemic entities.
2.     Materials and Methods
The breadth and diversity of evolutionary biology and cosmology theories and their implications, the existence of borderline issues and different interpretations, and the continuous advancements in science make evolutionary biology and cosmology very broad and dynamic epistemic entities. This breadth and dynamism create a very broad context for examining their relationship with religion.
The broad range of topics that can be emphasized to examine the relationship between evolutionary biology and cosmology with religion necessitates focusing on a subset of these topics. In this article, the emphasis on "purposefulness" provides this requirement. Limiting the scope of the examination, along with the continuous developments in sciences and the breadth of their conceptual scope, makes the final conclusion not definitive and deductive, as the examination conducted is limited. Therefore, the type of argument in this regard is evidential and probabilistic (as opposed to deductive); that is, the analyses and content of the argument's premises support its conclusion.
3.     Discussion and Result
The  fundamental difference between these epistemic entities refers to their logical compatibility with each other: Consider three propositions p, q, and r. If the simultaneous truth of p and q is possible, but the simultaneous truth of p and r is impossible, then there is a fundamental difference in the relationship between q and r with p. The term "fundamental difference" in this article refers to such a relationship, and the investigation into whether such a difference exists in the relationship between evolutionary biology and cosmology with religion is conducted through evaluating their implications on "purposefulness."
If we denote the implication of religion on purposefulness as T, the implication of evolutionary biology on purposefulness as EB, and the implication of cosmology on purposefulness as C, then:

T asserts that the universe must be purposeful.
EB claims that the universe, in terms of characteristics related to various biological levels, beneficial and harmful traits, and biodiversity (at least from the perspective of adaptation), cannot be considered purposeful.
C posits that the universe, in terms of its fundamental equations, laws, and constants, can be considered purposeful.

Therefore, at first glance, it seems that the simultaneous truth of T and EB is impossible – or, more accurately, as will be the basis in the paper, this assumption has fundamental challenges – but the simultaneous truth of T and C is possible.
4.     Conclusion
The argument presented in this paper has an important implication: believing in a fundamental difference in the relationship between science and religion in the two cases of biology and physics is a rational belief. Based on this, we should speak of the "relationships" between science and religion, rather than a singular "relationship."