Science and religion need not be in conflict they just tend to be the moment a decision is made by an individual that religion/faith is a better way to achieve knowledge than the scientific method. There is a fundamental shift in the basis of what evidence is acceptable, what would invalidate that conclusions reached and what explanatory power those conclusions give. The moment you are convinced you are in contact with a supernatural being you have made a stance shift in reality, no matter what physical or material evidence or theories or conclusions are presented they will be rejected outright unless they support the supernatural demands.
As a believer I thought myself wonderfully open minded as I read the theories on evolution but all the while my reality filter was rejecting the information and re-explaning it in some form of christian timeframe / creation worldview. This is where the conflict exists -inside the head of the person who has chosen a sub-optimal path to truth.
Science will march on regardless of the debates and will continue to discover how this reality works. Faith and religion never will since they all lack a means to approach and evaluate knowledge but start from a given (deity / spirit / woo x exists) and then explains all competing information as part of that whole.
To really be open minded is hard because it normally means accepting that you do not know, that you were wrong and that cherished invisible friends are figments of your imagination. In 100 years the books written about evolution will be radically improved with massive strides made in understanding the implications and making use of them (we will be doing real genetic manipulation rather than praying for them which is the sum total of the faith based contribution.) Dawkins will be hailed as a great educator but many of his statements will have been improved and expanded. Science never stops doubting and never stops to say 'this is TRUTH' bow down and worship.
