Science + Religion = ????

However, when people attempt to mix the realms of religion and science � attempting, for example, to use science to promote a given religious or philosophic view -- in the long run, given the very nature of the relationship between religion and science, the results will be the reverse of what is intended, and may end up damaging what in fact they hold most dear. For example, a proponent of science who believes that faith in God is absurd in the age of Science may end up creating a religious backlash against science itself among those who take a different view. But properly, empirical science cannot speak of the metaphysics of that which lies beyond the empirical realm and the ontology required by its naturalistic explanations.

Alternatively, those who attempt to use science to prove the existence of God will end up with a God susceptible to empirical criticism, when belief in God should be a matter of faith. A religious view rooted in science will be grounded in the shifting sands of scientific discourse, placed in constant threat of being uprooted by the newest scientific discoveries. For the better among those who initially accept this substitute for true faith, such a view will at first seem intoxicating, but will soon prove poisonous to their religious beliefs.

—TimChase, Religon and Science

Nicely sums up my feelings on both fronts. It is not that science and religion are at odds with one another directly; it is that there are people who insist that they should be at odds. Antitheism is rampant in many scientific communities, and it is just as poisonous as the antiscientism of many fundamentalist religious groups. Science, by its very nature, is constantly changing. A religion that does not allow its doctrines to change should certainly not tie itself to science. I do not object to archaeological digs trying to establish the accuracy of historical events, so long as the results are accepted whether or not they agree with what is written in the Bible. When religious groups sponsor these digs, they are likely tempted to gloss over inconsistencies, and this is not science. It's also not scientific if an antitheist group ignores evidence that supports the biblical accounts. Science is all about the inconsistencies. The error bars are often more important than the data itself. As soon as religious beliefs—whether pro or anti—enter data analysis, it stops being scientific and becomes dogmatic. The only dogma in science is, "Can it be repeated? Would another scientist reach the same conclusion? What are the sources for error?"