"Myth of Passage" Theory vs. Dynamic Theory

Becky asked in her blog what the difference was between the "myth of passage" theory and the dynamic theory. The way I understood it was, people who subscribe to the "myth of passage" theory believe that time does not flow, the flowing is simply an illusion. People who believe in the dynamic theory think that there is an objective flow to time, beyond human perception. "Myth of Passage" theorists argue that, although events appear to move from future, to present, and to past, that is just how the events relate to us as humans. Here is a quote from the reading that explains the "myth of passage" theory:

“Events simply are or occur…but they do not ‘advance’ into a pre-existing frame called ‘time.’ …[T]ime is a system of relations between events, and as events are, so are their relations. An event does not move and neither do any of its relations.” - Adolf Grünbaum

What interests me is the fact that physicists tend to defend the "myth of passage" theory, while philosophers tend to defend the dynamic theory. Why is it that philosophers and scientists seem to be at odds a lot? What is the relationship between science and philosophy? How can their differences be reconciled?