Coyne's site states that the subject was: “Are science and religion compatible?” Coyne, I'm guessing, would say they aren't. According to the quotation at the Wikipedia page for Haught, he would agree with Coyne: "Science and religion cannot logically stand in a competitive relationship with each other." What little I understand about evolutionary creationism seems to imply a level to reality above that of the universe, in which god acts, and which, because it cannot be perceived, cannot be either proved or disproved. So what's to argue about? Haught claims that "materialism" dwells in the heart of science educators, which he views as a religion. So I guess this is an argument about one man's notions that we worship "materialism," and that religion should be given equal time, even though he doesn't dispute the findings of modern science. So the argument isn't about the structure of the universe or the findings of modern science, but giving equal time to "religion" because science is a worship of "materialism"? Pretty thin gruel for a debate, since "materialism" exists as a religion only in the mind of Haught. Funny, the science magazines I read have no mention of this "materialism" he speaks of.
As to religion, for me, part of human freedom is getting to believe what you want. It's your mind, use it as you see fit, so long as you don't harm anyone else. Besides, I know an atheist who rejects climate change and a Catholic who accepts it. I know a former protestant minister, very religious, who accepts the findings of geology about the age of the Earth. I know a non-religious person who believes in alien visitations. This is subjective, but I find no correlation between rational thinking and personal belief systems. It seems to be based on the individual, not the religion.