"I'd also have to state that scientists who say science isn't anti-religion are in two ways very wrong. Their methods and uses are almost polar opposites. Science is based on skepticism, testing and repeatable data with methods to minimize the impact of human bias and feelings; while religion is based on frequently untestable history, faith, and feelings. Science seeks to understand the physical world and religion the spiritual. I hate to argue against religion except in it opposition to evolution because it is a great source of comfort and moral guidance for many. Science has little to nothing to offer in the way of spiritual comfort and lttle to offer on morality unless you consider psychology a true science and even it is far more vague. They are anti in the opposite/complimentary sense like yin and yang or protons and antiprotons [and almost as volatile when mixed ;)]. Religion has provided much mental comfort to humanity while science has provided much physical comfort. My own opinion is that religion should not attempt to interject itself into science and that science should ignore religion."

There are of course many religious people who have no problem with evolution. And people with scientific understanding should recognize the limit [at the moment] of our understanding of how or if life came into being from non living matter on this planet or elsewhere.

There is no clear reason that should lead a person to be anti-religious and nothing which part of science that should cause one to be anti-religious. Anymore than science should lead one to be anti-music. Or to find lawyers and politicans intolerable [which might or might not be a reasonable view- but it's more about personal opinion or preferences rather something specific to science].

And I'm a big believer in the idea that if humans lack some kind of religion then they will find religion in other things. And generally I would rather people worship some god, rather than some human. Though wouldn't outlaw people fainting over presidential candidates or rock stars- I simply wouldn't want to encourage it too much.

But there is no doubt and I agree that Science and Religion are different, but just being different doesn't make them "opposing forces".
Some say, that religion is like a drug- so it might be said the drug use and religion are more in conflict than science and religion.

Now, one should be skeptical in regards to science, but just because one *should* be doesn't mean that people are.

The principles of science demand that one resist "authority", "consenus", and the idea that only select few are capable and/or somehow selected to know something. This of course doesn't deny that there are those who are more talented and dedicated who may understand something that others who spent less time and effort or in general have less will to understand. But universal understanding and being able to demonstrate and for anyone to be able repeat such a demonstration is a keystone that science rest.

Science is a process of knowing, science is more about this process than what this process makes [books of knowledge & technology] - if science ever gets to the point of having nothing left to discover, Science is essentially over.

Though, one could teach by having students do various scientific rituals- but they would be only rituals and have about the same "value" as religious rituals.
IF and WHEN there is nothing to discover [and this may be pretty close to never] science at that point can only be a religion.
Now, this is important, because if you teach that science is over- "we know all the answers, other than some minor unimportant details" one is creating an environment which is one is promoting Science the Religion rather than science the route to discovery and greater understanding of the world/universe. So, if Science is made more into a religion from this kind promotion, then at that point one can have a conflict between Religion and Science- more precisely there is competition between these different religions.