Q.) Why can't Science and Religion get along?
A.) Science and Religion can get along just fine, provided that religious zealots don't try to employ pseudo-science to further the dogmatic indoctrination of children through public education.
The problem lies in the fact that (for the most part) idiots like Kent Hovind (the convicted fraudster) and Ken Ham (creation museum) use misinformation and lack peer review before presenting their information as fact. Having gone to the creation museum myself, as an agnostic/atheist, I can say that the museum is academically dishonest and presents absolutely no evidence of creation. Meanwhile, its scientific arguments are easily falsifiable.
I'm offended by the fact that religion says that evolution is only a theory (as if it can't be shown). Evolution can be shown in everything from bacteria to plants to animals to humans themselves.
The next major issue is transitional fossils. This is the dreaded "crockoduck" argument presented by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, Google the term. Transition doesn't occur between.. say... a crocodile turning into a duck.. its actually a lot more interesting than that. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Next on the agenda, many creationists try to argue that live is complex, thus it must have a designer. Well, amino acids and DNA rely heavily upon Chemistry and Physics which allows and governs these complex arrangements of chemicals. This isn't random chance like many creationists would like you to believe.
There are a billion other arguments that come up, but in the end, if this country allows creationism / "intelligent design" to be taught in schools as real science, education might as well no longer exist. I have no issue with students learning about religion in an elective course. However, SCIENCE should be presented in a SCIENCE classroom. If you want to present religion, present it in a class based on religion or possibly (in my opinion) its better left for a creative writing class.
I choose to be an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. It is my personal belief that the Judeo-Christian "god" is false, and I'm not sufficiently satisfied that Jesus Christ ever existed as there is no mention of Christ outside of the bible, with the exception of Pliny the Younger claiming to believe in Cristus, however, this is heresay and Pliny the Younger was born about 30 years after Christ would have died. P-t-Y's father, Pliny the Elder, makes no mention of Jesus Christ and he was a widely respected historian.
I choose to seek truth. If I'm wrong and a creator exists, one of two things will occur:
1.) I will have a chance to explain myself, in which a descent, loving, and understanding creator will understand that I spend my life seeking truth instead of comfort.
OR
2.) God / the creator is raging mad man, like the god of the old testament. In this case, I'm infinitely more moral because I do not advocate rape, torture, genocide, etc. If I'm "cast into hell", thats fine with me because the god of the old testament is flawed (and likely false). Plus, 2/3rds of the world isn't muslim, christian, or jewish. Thus, according to the Bible, 2/3rds of the worlds population is dammed by default for failing to recognize Christ. Sorry about your luck. LOL!
At the end of the day, my belief falls along the line of naturalistic pantheism. If you don't know what that is, you might want to check it out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism