I agree, Jordan, that the non-overlapping magisteria model is questionable. It is interesting that many ECs deny vehemently that they hold to it, when their arguments fit right into it. I lost count of the number of times that columnists on BioLogos said things like: “Science concerns objective facts about how the universe works, whereas religion concerns questions of purpose, value, and meaning, so the two cannot be in conflict.” Yet they could in the next moment turn around and say, “Oh, no, I don’t support NOMA at all.”
Alvin Plantinga used to offer a formulation something like yours, but with a little more teeth to the religion side. I heard him give a talk once in which he said that scientific and religious propositions did sometimes seem to be in tension, and that the way to work out the tension was not by pretending no tension existed (which is the NOMA approach), but by forcing both scientists and theologians to go back over their certainties and revisit them, casting about for possible alternate interpretations both of the religion and of the science. I liked that model, because it didn’t imply that where conflict arose, it was always the religious folks who had to go back and change the way they read the Bible, to fit in with “consensus science”. The scientists, too, were expected to revisit their data and their interpretations if their conclusions appeared to conflict with religious truths that were absolutely central to Christian faith. (Of course, Plantinga was speaking to an audience of firm Christians, not of agnostics, atheists, etc. – to Christians who took the truth of revelation as certain, even if the exact formulation of Christian theology was open to debate.) Too often at BioLogos and among ASA writers, the approach is that science has veto power over the conclusions of religion, but there is no parallel veto for religion over the conclusions of science. The asymmetry is often very obvious.
If I may say a word in favor of Joshua, his “Genealogical Adam” approach is somewhat along Plantinga’s lines; Joshua questions the supposed consensus interpretation of “science” (i.e., the BioLogos interpretation) regarding Adam and Eve, due to his hesitation to just junk the traditional theological understanding. Whether or not Joshua’s view will win the day remains to be seen, but it is a more imaginative approach, and more respectful of the “religion” side of the tension, than simple NOMA compartmentalization.