I tend to agree with that, the only genuinely rational position given what we genuinely know about the universe without assumptions (which is practically nothing) is Agnosticism. I can't prove or disprove science. No-one can. With the mental tools we currently have at our disposal. (I really Russell's book btw, even if I disagree with it - every member of the religious right should be read his "nice people" essay.)
His work is certainly something I've read, though it was a while ago. Though from my point of view, while I used the term middle ground, there is probably more than one.
I am a theist. I believe in a God but I see modern science as a continuing revelation of his creation, an understanding of which comes through the advance of knowledge therefore I believe scientific concepts to be, on the whole 'correct and compatable.' At least to the point at which scientific understanding currently stands. If things are challenged through a similar method then what is 'correct' becomes not necessarily incorrect, but is merely superceded.
Which on reflection probably isn't a middle ground. I am perhaps
folding over both sides, the natural (though we do not yet know what it fully is) and supernatural (which we do not know if it exists by the methods employed to understand what is natural) to meet.
