Unfortunately it seems to be evangelical Christians who seem to have the most complaints that science and faith can't coexist. Note the evangelicals' cheerleading for warning stickers on evolution textbooks and the wacky "Intelligent Design" theories.

Hooray for President Bush's chief science advisor, John H. Marburger: "...Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory...I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic...Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology."

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/768_white_house_science_advisor__2_22_2005.asp

Actually, the evangelical community continues to promote the idea that naturalism alone is not sufficient to render the sum total of our existence. In other words, science has nothing to say with regards to the abstract, to the things that are really the most important aspects of our lives (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/science/science.htm). As such, groups such as Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org/) posit that there is an intersection between faith and science.

It is typically the evolutionist who denies the coexistence of science and faith (just take one trip to the Panda's Thumb - http://www.pandasthumb.org/). While some evolutionists have no problem with a scientist having faith there is, in no uncertain terms, a distinct barrier (http://newcovenant.blogspot.com/2004/12/theistic-evolution-and-naturalisms-big.html) between that faith and the workings of the science they profess.

Let's write a little American story. I'll give you the choice of endings.

Little Susie comes home from school. Her mom is in the kitchen fixing dinner. Susie sits down at the table, thinking quietly. Finally she speaks.
"Mom, we finished the chapter on evolution in biology. There wasn't one mention of God or the Bible. "
"Susie, that's okay. We have no reason to doubt anything in the book. Brilliant Christian men and women as well as other religous scientists have studied God's beautiful world and its nature for centuries and come to these theories. Science doesn't deal with God, just like your calculus class. The book didn't say there was no God, did it?"
Susie thinks about this.
"Well, no. But, Mom, you let me go to your Bible study group now each week, and something bothers me."
Her mom reaches across the table, looks into her daughter's eyes, and squeezes her hand.
"Tell me what bothers you, honey."
"Well, if humans and great apes are descended with modification from a common ape-like ancestor like evolution says, then there was no Adam and Eve or Original Sin. And if there is no Original Sin, then why did Jesus die for us on the cross?"

ENDINGS
A.) Her mother squeezed Susie's hand again, and looks lovingly into her daughter's eyes.
"That's a great question, sweetie, and I just will tell you I don't know, in the same way I don't know a lot of the reasons why God does what He does. Biology, math, physics, geology, or whatever subject has nothing to say about the most important things in our life as a family and Christians. You and I feel every day in our hearts God's strength and the love of Jesus. So probably in someway both things are right---evolution and God so loving us that His beloved Son died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected." With that she kissed her daughter, and got back up to finish dinner.

B.) Her mother's eyes narrowed angrily.
"Then that biology book is one big fat lie. Does it have a warning sticker on it? You know this evolution crap is only a theory---as well researched as UFOs and crop circles. It doesn't mention God because atheist scientists want to convince you there's no God! There was Original Sin and if evolution doesn't account for it the way we studied it in Bible group, the evolution is wrong." With that her mother got up to call the members of her Bible study group. She'd get them to picket the school board to put an end to this anti-Christian, atheistic evolutionism.

Welcome to America, Rusty. Why don't you folks push harder on Ending A?

Tom,

You forgot option C)...

Susie's mom realized that if humans descended with modification from a common ape-like ancestor, then the abstract feeling she has for Susie - the feeling she has called "love" - is merely an illusion... Rather, the feeling is simply the result of chemical reactions, not unlike those that may produce the sensation of indigestion; an artifact of natural selection which was simply a by-product of a myriad of modification with change scenarios played out over the course of millions upon millions of years. No different, in reality, then the chance arrangement leading one animal to survive a predator's attack, while a fellow species member succumbs.

What's more, Susie's mom realizes that if she's simply another descended creature from a common ape-like ancestor, her abstract concept of morality is, like love, also an illusion. As there is no such thing as immorality within the animal kingdom, there are just organisms, and their actions. There is no right and there is no wrong.

Realizing as much, she then reaches into her kitchen drawer, pulls out a meat cleaver, and promptly begins to slaughter her daughter for dinner.

Rusty, a great post even if I completely disagree. I laughed at the ending, not in a mean way truly(!) but that you're making your point well.

It's always puzzled me why theists can't accept human morality without a god. In short, the beautiful natural miracle of existence that brings you and me here over 15 billion years from a Big Bang to star-stuff to lava to single cell creatures to fishies to ape-like ancestor to two guys arguing love, science, God, and philosophy...and you can't fathom the complexity of morality potentially coming out of such wonder? You have stardust in your veins, buddy, and you can't postulate love? I'm sincerely puzzled you can't conceive of such possibilities (but with respect.)

And I think I know your answer, so we'll leave it at that. Thanks for a fun, thoughtful discussion.