it’s about the fact that sometimes religion includes dogma that isn’t in conflict with science.
“The sky is above the earth.”
Why do you consider that a religious dogma?
I was thinking along the lines of science confirming religious dogma. For instance, science seems to now endorse the benefits of circumcision. This is confirmation in a very loose sense, but nevertheless, one could consider this a scientific success that does not come at the expense of that particular religious dogma.
This changes the parameters of your question.
Now it seems as if you’re asking:
In what ways is [Sam claiming] faith-based, definitively unscientific religious dogma compatible with science?
You seem to be defining any possible rational answer out of the equation (and/or forcing Sam to be in error by definitional fiat).
At least that’s the way it’s starting to look ...