I like some of what you just put Stu, but one thing you said doesn't sit quite so comfortably;

You spoke of Dawkins converting people. I don't go along with a science versus religion debate, and I doubt Prof Dawkins does either. It is the separation rather than the polarising that he puts forward. I doubt he or anybody else would have an issue if something in the bible turned out to be on the button. It is the use and abuse of religion as a tool that rankles him in his humanist talk.

Science isn't really about truth, whereas religion is. Religion uses the subjective word "truth" whilst science would be more comfortable with the objective word "fact."

You find facts whilst truth is a measure of your perception.

Hence those of a superstitious mind conveniently confuse the two.

If Steve is wrong in his assertion that religion is absolutely in conflict with science, it would only be due to narrow confines of the word science, ie physics, chemistry and biology. Whereas religion has shaped social sciences since the first human communicated with the second.