Himalaya - to continue.
[Actually my last statement wasn't absolutely accurate - there are problems even before we get to the Science/Religion question - but those aren't the problems which concern this thread]
You wrote "Frank H - how do you reconcile your scientific knowledge that life evolved through a purposeless process, with human beings having no particularly special status with your religious belief (presumably, I'm guessing...) that humans are a special kind of organism, made in gods image, with a purpose, and a soul and a special relationship with the creator?"
and "Thanks Frank - I know there are religious scientists, I am just bemused by how they manage to reconcile the two views of the same reality .... "
You can have "two views" of the same reality - in fact that's quite a good description of my viewpoint.
When I teach Evolution, I teach it in terms of a process driven by purely scientifically determined factors such as, especially, natural selection. This is a scientific description, and actually says nothing about whether or not there is an ultimate "purpose". It is quite possible to believe that while the whole of ultimate reality might have a purpose, it doesn't necessarily show up in proximate processes. [I make it quite clear to students that if they answer questions using arguments such as "The Bible/Koran/other scriptural text says/doesnt say X", they will receive no marks for it, as they don't constitute a scientific argument.]
An over-simplification, but I believe that, except proximately, Science only answers questions of "How?". It doesn't, and cannot, answer ultimate questions of "Why?", or, indeed, whether or not there is an ultimate question "Why?".
[What I personally believe is that the whole of reality is ultimately due to a God of Love. I do not think of God as an old man with a beard, in fact I don't think of God in these sort of physical terms at all.]
As for the position of humans, I see the "God's image" statement as connected with the fact that, unless we are psychopaths, we all actually believe that there is a moral dimension to our existence. We may differ on exactly what is right or wrong, but we accept that right and wrong exist. In my opinion a number of other subjects are also involved, such as Love (which I believe is the most important factor in what is right).
This isn't the place for a theological lecture. However I hope that, even if you don't agree with me, you can see how I, and many other scientists, can be Christians (or Jews/Moslems/Buddhists etc.), without feeling any contradiction.
It may surprise many people to learn that some of the earliest supporters of Darwin, especially in the USA, were evangelical Christians.
And today, evolutionary biologists include many who are "believers", and many others, such as the late Stephen J. Gould, who, while not "religious", certainly wouldn't go along with the militantly Atheist view of Richard Dawkins and his supporters. The same remarks apply to scientists as a whole.
I agree absolutely that people of any particular "faith" have no right to impose their views and practices on others.