A long passage but I'm sure u guys will understand...not like me....T.T

'In one sense, the conflict between science and religion is a slight matter which has been unduly emphsized. A mere logical contradiction cannot in itself point to more than the necessity of some readjustments, possibly of a very minor character on both sides. Remember the widely different aspects of events which are dealt with in science and in religion respectively. Science is concerned with the general conditions which are observed to regulate physical phenomena; whereas religion is wholly wrapped up in the contemplation of moral aesthetic values. On the one side there is the law of gravitation, and on the other contemplation of the beauty of holiness. What one side sees, the other misses; and vice versa. Consider, for example, the lives of John Wesley and of the Saint Francis of Assisi. For physical science you have in these lives merely ordinary examples of the operatrion of the principles of physiological chemistry, and of dynamic of nervous reactions; for religion you have lives of the most profound significance in the history of the world. Can you be surprised that, in the absence of a perfect and complete phrasing of the principles of science and of the principles of religion which apply to these specific cases, the accounts of these lives from these divergent standpoints would involve ( )? It would be a miracle if it were not so.'

a. coincidence

b. similarities please tell me what the answer could be and why... I've poring over it for a whole day now...T.T

c. discrepancies especially the highlightes part

d. incoherences

e. rigidities