Early in the year I wrote a blog piece about science and Christianity not being in mortal conflict. I have since discovered that this area of thought even has it's own title and wiki page. It is called the conflict thesis. The conflict thesis:
The conflict thesis is the proposition that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to public hostility. The thesis, refined beyond its most simplistic original forms, remains generally popular. However, historians of science no longer support it.
Here is one quote from Gary Ferngren. He edited a book of essays called Science and Religion: A historical introduction. He is a lecturer at Oregon State University . But let me confess I haven't read the book yet, I've just stolen the quote from wiki. (I'm always a little sceptical of wiki as a source of all truth.)
Gary writes:
While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.[13]
I'm looking forward to reading some of the book once I finish a few others on the big pile of unread books near my desk.