Science vs. Religion? Is that even a fair question?

I stumbled across an article on the Big Questions website I posted a couple of weeks ago.  The following paragraph struck me as interesting:


"The models generated by biochemical processes in our brains constitute “reality.” None of us can ever be completely sure that the world really is as it appears, or if our minds have unconsciously imposed a misleading pattern on the data. I call this belief-dependent realism. In my forthcoming book, The Believing Brain, I demonstrate the myriad ways that our beliefs shape, influence, and even control everything we think, do, and say about the world. The power of belief is so strong that we typically form our beliefs first, then construct a rationale for holding those beliefs after the fact. I claim that the only escape from this epistemological trap is science. Flawed as it may be because it is conducted by scientists who have their own set of beliefs determining their reality, science itself has a set of methods to bypass the cognitive biases that so cripple our grasp of the reality that really does exist out there."
*Emphasis added


(You can read the whole article here)
I would have to agree that science, at least genuine, truth-seeking science, can be relied upon when considering what is real.  This morning, when reading the book that I am very slowly making my way through (but thoroughly enjoying), Guy P. Harrison's 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God, I read the chapter on the reason "Science can't explain everything."  Upon reading the chapter title, I inwardly journeyed back to an Elementary Education Science class I had with a Physics professor (who, it turns out, is a member of the UU church in town, a member of the atheist group here, and someone who gives presentations on how Evolution and God do not have to be contradictory ideas) who, on the first day of class set aside time to discuss the limits of Science.  I found his words very useful and still do.  He said something like this


"Science sets out to discover the world around us.  It is based on testable evidence, a wide community of scientists who contribute to the pool of science after rigorous experimentation, and the understanding that there are certain things that science cannot touch, matters of faith being one of them.  Because faith requires its followers to believe without seeing and science is all about testing until you can see, they seem incompatible.  Faith cannot be combated with Science or vice verse.  They are on different planes.  In that same way, you cannot claim that a religious book is a scientific textbook, since it was most likely written for moral and spiritual guidance.  Allow each field to do what its definition allows for it to do and you'll find that there are fewer fights between the religious and the scientific."


I felt good hearing this scientist not belittle the Bible or any religion, but rather remind us to keep each system in its place.  As Thomas Aquinas said, "All truth is God's truth."  As long as the Scientists were not maliciously working to kick God out or be dishonest, then I figured their corner of truth could be trusted.  I've always had a hard time with friends or family members who think that evidence for dinosaurs is a hoax that the secularists have created in order to try and make the Bible's creation account look incorrect.  Or that evolutionary scientists are just out to disprove God.  I cannot believe that a huge body of intelligent, rational people, especially people who by their definition (scientists), are obsessed with truth, would work that hard to hide the truth.  I used to find it much more likely that the parts of the Bible that seemed to speak on science had been dumbed down by God so that the readers would be able to understand. 


More on my old, professor-influenced beliefs on science and religion...  I actually looked into teaching at a school overseas and began an application to National Institution of Christian School.  I have pasted excerpts of the application.  These are things I wrote while I was a definite believer, but not someone who closed my ears to other fields of knowledge:


What are your beliefs about the Bible being the inspired and infallible word of God?
"... I must say that I believe the Bible has complete authority, but that God has the authority to communicate to us in ways that may be layered; not necessarily like a modern-day history or science textbook.  I can say that the Bible is literal, if “literal” means it communicates what the author or inspirer (God!) intended for it to communicate in the way He intended for the material to be presented.  Was earth really formed in exactly 7 days?  Is the origin of multiple languages really the result of God’s disapproval of the building of the Tower of Babel?  Or are these just ways that God communicated hard to understand truths to the Bible’s readers so that they would see that He has been composing every part of the earth’s history, from its beginning to its peoples’ languages, to its natural disasters, to its end?  I know that God is true and honest, but I think His way of speaking to His scribes may have, in some cases, been more poetry than prose, and I can accept that and still believe in Him and His Word.  The Bible tells God’s story, and is meant to inform readers about His love, majesty, and grace, not be a textbook.  I love the Word for what it is, a divinely inspired document that transcends time and cultures to present God’s love, truth, and grace to its readers."


What do you believe about the origin of the earth and mankind?
"I believe that God is the only Creator.  Chance, nature, and science are not in charge of the world and its origin.  I believe that God created everything that exists in His time, whether that was literally 7 days as we define them or not.  I believe He created mankind and that although He loved them and saw them as good, they sinned against Him and have sinned against Him since.  I believe that we, humans, are inherently sinful and can only be good if God lives in us, which can only happen if we accept the grace that Jesus offered to us when He died on the cross.  God continues to love us, even though we've done nothing to deserve it."


I actually didn't finish the application.  I remember agonizing over that question on origin, deleting a lot of my initial answer, which I thought the Christian teaching organization would not accept.  As reasonable as I find those answers to be, I felt like they (and other answers that I've not included on things like alcohol use and my daily quiet times) were too liberal to even bother with applying to a mission organization.  I imagined the HR person reading my answers and judging my faith, giving me their religious litmus test.  I'm now very glad I didn't end up going in that direction!  Can you imagine how crazy this process would be if I was teaching in a conservative Christian community overseas?  Oivey.


What are your (believers, atheists, agnostics, uncertains all are welcome to answer) thoughts on the boundaries of science and religion?  Is it possible to be a Christian scientist (not a Scientologist!) and maintain intellectual honesty? Is the use of science and logic helpful when trying to decide which (if any) religion to commit to? 

ps.  Sorry this font size/ spacing is off.  Sometimes formatting bewilders and aggravates me!