The relationship between religion and science has been a focus of the Demarcation problem. Statements about the world made by science and religion rely on different methodologies. Religions rely on revelation while science relies on observable, repeatable experiences. Some scholars say the two are separate, as in John William Draper's conflict thesis and Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, while others (Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Ken Wilber, et al.) propose an interconnection. The Pew Forum has published data on attitudes to religion and science.[1]

Science and Religion are portrayed to be in harmony in the Tiffany window Education (1890).
The reconciliation of Christianity with science has had at least three attempted solutions that have proven themselves quite problematic.[citation needed] These three problematic solutions are biblical literalism, religious experience, and the evolving consensus of scientific truth.[citation needed] Each of these methods of reconciliation have various historical and present-day examples. Respective examples include creationism, liberal Christianity, and scientific imperialism.[citation needed] Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with Newtonian mechanics appear quite different from later attempts at reconciliation with the newer scientific ideas of evolution or relativity.[24] Many early interpretations of evolution polarized themselves around a struggle for existence. These ideas were significantly countered by later findings of universal patterns of biological cooperation. According to John Habgood, all man really knows here is that the universe seems to be a mix of good and evil, beauty and pain, and that suffering may somehow be part of the process of creation. Habgood holds that Christians should not be surprised that suffering may be used creatively by God, given their faith in the symbol of the Cross. Habgood states that Christians have for two millennia believed in the love of God because he revealed "Himself as Love in Jesus Christ," not because the physical universe does or does not point to the value of love.[24]

Introduction When discussing the subject of "origins" (i.e. the question "How did we get here?", people often make both religious and scientific claims. Additionally, people have many different views on the proper relationship between science and religion. The purpose of this article is to discuss the nature of science, the nature of religion, and the relationship of science and religion. The article will show how intelligent design theory is science, and not religion, and that while many proponents of intelligent design have religious beliefs, this affect neither the quality of the science of intelligent design nor does it negate the secular, scientific basis of the theory of intelligent design.

A primary goal of science is to understand nature, where "understanding" means "relating one natural phenomena to another and recognizing the causes and effects of phenomena."1Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.

1. Based upon results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists.1,2
2. Subject to testing because scientists can observe the natural world to see if the explanation holds up.4, 5
3. “Falsifiable,” in the sense that some type of observations could conceivably count against the theory.4, 5
4. "Tentative," meaning that they are not held absolutely but are held subject to state of the evidence.1

As the National Academy of Sciences explains, observations (often via experimentation) are fundamental to science:
Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not a part of science…The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment.1

scientific understanding begins with observations. Scientists then make a hypothesis to explain those observations. The hypothesis should make predictions which can be tested via experiments.21 If the predictions of the hypothesis are verified, it is concluded that the hypothesis is supported by the scientific data. That conclusion is an observation in-and-of itself, which can form the basis for further hypotheses, experiments, and conclusions. In this way, scientific knowledge builds upon itself: Thus, scientific knowledge is at its heart based upon observations and experiments. Another way of putting it is that science is based upon empirical data.

What is religion?
Religion is another way of "knowing about" the natural world. While science bases all statements upon observations, religion bases many of its statements upon faith or divine revelation. The main difference between religion and science is that only religion has a component of faith. Faith statements are not ultimately based upon the observable, and are not tentative, nor testable nor falsifiable through the scientific method, but are believed to be true for reasons that go beyond empirically observable evidence--often because of divine revelation.

Because religion has faith, religious beliefs are held absolutely, and faith may maintain religious beliefs if there is an absence of confirming evidence. Scientific beliefs are said to be "tentative," for nothing in science is absolutely proven; scientific claims are only said to be "supported to a given degree by the evidence." Only religious beliefs are "dogmatic" in the sense that they are claimed to be absolutely known to be completely true.

Unfortunately, it is a popular notion that if something is not scientific, it is irrational or cannot be known to be true. Terms like "dogmatic," "unscientific," or "faith-based" may be eschewed because people believe that only strictly scientific evidence-based claims should be taken seriously. The fact that religion has a component of faith does not imply religion is based upon irrational "blind faith." In reality, there are many philosophical, moral, historical, and even empirical intellectual arguments which can be made in favor of religious claims.


http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/prologue.pdf

Contrary to the common view, the modern scientific view of the natural world is not inherently atheistic or antagonistic to religion. Therefore, religion does not need to be hostile to science. Instead, theology should provide mental superstructures based on a scientific understanding of the world. In the latter part of this book, I discuss how God works in a universe whose operation canbe described by natural laws.