As blankfist has described above, science is a method for gaining knowledge. Religion is merely a hypothesis, or rather a huge amount of smaller hypotheses, which can be tested with the scientific method. Thus there is no direct confrontation or contradiction between the two. That being said, religion demands faith of its followers, which is the belief of something in spite of evidence, and this means that it is corrosive to the scientific method. This is bad. And this is why religion hold up to any scientific fact. Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

The example of 1+2=3 is an overly simplistic one and not very useful, because there is only one correct answer; there can never be other answers, because math is a logical system. The world is not a logical system, and science is not merely logic.

An example which I think would be more apt, is the theory of a geocentric universe. Until Copernicus people had faith in the Bible's hypothesis that the universe circled around the Earth. His observations shattered that hypothesis and thus a new hypothesis was made, that the earth was circling around the sun. This has proven to be true through repeated observations and is as such regarded as a theory, or what we lay-people call fact. Every hypothesis that the bible has presented, which have been testable have turned out to be false, and thus it is within reason to regard the whole thing as bunk.

Evolution
Evolution is a theory, or what we lay-people call a fact. It has been observed in fossil records and is happening constantly every time any creature or life form has offspring. Evolution is the theory that life forms changes shape, abilities and such over generations.

Natural selection is a theory that tries to explain how evolution happens, which is why people call it Evolution by Natural Selection. Natural Selection says that the more you spread you genes, the more of your type there will be. (Seems pretty down to earth and intuitive, right?)

Evolution by Natural Selection is therefore NOT RANDOM, at all. Yes, any given mutations are random, but they are merely the catalyst by which natural selection works. Of all those random mutations, some are inherently better adapters than others and will procreate more than others, and that means more life forms with that mutation (which is no longer considered a mutation) will appear in the next generation. But I think we all agree on that particular point, but it is important to make it as clear as possible.

I have yet to see any knowledge gained from the bible that turns out to be true. Of course the things lifted from common sense, "Thou shalt not kill", that fact that gravity existed in the stories and so on are true, but any given hypothesis that the bible has made is always proven false, when it can be proven either way.

If something cannot be proven either way, there is no basis for evaluating it and thus it should not be considered in any situation. Doc_M, you say an agnostic says:

"there might be a God so I consider it when I look at data I take in on a daily basis"

That is false. An agnostic does indeed not consider the things he is agnostic about. I am technically an agnostic, but I am technically agnostic about many, many things. I don't consider them, why should a possible god be considered, more than the pixie-faeries of bubblegum forest? (sorry, I'm being a bit snide there)
--
When religion is evaluated with scientific terms, we have to break it down into smaller hypothesis. One such hypothesis, which is pretty basic to almost all religions is, "is there a God?"; the term "a God" must then be defined, so that we can test that hypothesis. If it is defined like in the bible, that there is a being which created everything and continually watches and judges humans, then the evidence until now clearly point to the hypothesis being false.

As I've written above, no hypothesis derived from the bible has yet been proven true. Thus there is no real reason to consider any of it true, and therefor no reason to live by its laws.

Separation of church and state, as it stands now, is a joke. This is an issue that will be very big in the coming decades as atheism gains a wider acceptance, and evangelicals make themselves look like idiots by fighting even more vociferously against it. I think the world is almost ready to wake up and stop believing in faerie tales.

As a rule I don't believe in sweeping generalizations, but in the case of religion I make an exception. This video is but one example of religion facilitating hate and fear. It would be impossible to count them all.

You think I'm ignorant? Stop believing in faerie stories, and stop believing what the faeries tell you is bad. Think for yourself.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'soft drink, uncola, 70s, psychedelic, see the light' to 'soft drink, uncola, 70s, psychedelic, see the light, faeries, neons' - edited by looris

I couldn't resist posting the part about "Horseshoes" and "Faeries":

Another theory concerning the placing of horseshoes above doorways is to ward off Faeries (the Celtic kind); the theory being that Faeries are repelled by iron and as horseshoes were an easily available source of iron, they could be nailed above a door to prevent any unwanted, otherworldly guests. One can see how the custom, as people began to forget the stories concerning the Fair Folk, eventually morphed into a simple good luck charm. It is also possible that the Romans, when arriving in Celtic countries, came across horseshoes nailed above doors and simply borrowed the concept of horseshoes as good luck charms, failing to understand the background of the Celtic custom, and made their use more widespread.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That would be cool. Maybe the code faeries will put that in tonight. ;-)