To me, there is not necessarily any direct conflict between Science and Religion (capitalization intentional). There is, however, a huge contradiction between Science and Faith. Science relies on evidence, while religion unfortunately often relies upon faith, and faith repudiates evidence.
Science is not always hard fact, but its tenets are always testable and what we call scientific laws are phenomena for which no test has been constructed which can disprove them. That is to say, in science you may believe something, but if you can design an experiment which reliably disproves that belief, then the belief (whether the belief is in God or in a scientific law) must be wrong. In faith, however, if you have the same belief and observe the same results, then it is the *results* which must be taken as incorrect in order that the belief (and thus the faith) may be preserved.
Faith has the distinct advantage of always having the fallback position of "God did it", which not only can explain literally anything but is also completely untestable. The neat thing is that if you somehow designed a test which was able to conclusively prove the existence of a true God then the faith would suddenly become redundant, as God's existence would simply become a matter of scientific fact.
My point is that science is not necessarily incompatible with the existence of a God--but with no evidence and no testability, it is not scientifically defensible to maintain such a belief*. Given such evidence it would be unscientific to *not* believe in that God (but that would no longer be Faith; it would simply be believing the evidence).
* Then again, without scientific evidence proving that God *doesn't* exist, it's also scientifically indefensible to believe that there is no God. Disbelieving what humans have written down as the "Word of God" (in whatever religion) is totally defensible, however, as much of that is testable and can be proven to be false (see Genesis).
My $0.02 CDN anyway.
Torben