Remember Gallileo who studied the planets and was the first to be able to prove that the earth was NOT the center of the universe? The curial arm of the church wanted him done with, the pastoral side saved him from execution and the" iluminatis" (enlighted ones) came to be, a secret society of scientists who hid from the church of Rome. Science has no problem with religion but religion has a problem with science as the later keeps discovering.............

Generally speaking both are methods of understanding the world we live in. One is based on observation and experimentation with the results (truth) being available and reproducible to and by anyone. The other is based on tradition, anecdote, subjectivity, mythology, folklore, and faith with truth being imparted on a select few with most adherents being expected to believe without justification. The scientific method requires verification and falsification of claims. Religious doctrine tends to discourage this type of questioning. Specific examples like the one you mentioned are evolutionary biology vs creation, astrophysics vs flat earth, geologic record vs short earth history, biology vs raising of the dead and talking animals. The list goes on and isn’t limited to Abrahamic religions as I have done here.

Anyone is of course free to perform mental gymnastics in an attempt to merge the two, but as methods of understanding the world they are antithetical to each other in my opinion.

I don't think science is of necessity antithetical to religion. I agree science doesn't need religion and is a more logical explanation for things in the world and the universe than religion is, but my father was a science teacher and a Catholic. He believed evolution happened, that it was God's way of creating different species as well as humans. You can believe everything you learn in science and still believe a god was behind it all.

Science is based on facts and that is it. ONLY facts. Religion is just shit

Yes it is. And as for areas where it conflicts, just about everywhere, certainly in areas concerning natural phenomena

No to much antithetical: it just doesn't need it. For instance, E=MC2 stands on its own. Scientists don't need to append iot with E=MC2 (because Jesus wills it).

The Bible says Jesus walked on water. But Science says to not sink in water you must displace more than your weight in water. So Jesus had to have huge feet in order to walk on water.

I have a good Christian friend who say's the bible can be wrong. "It is the word of God translated by mankind. Mankind has faults. Science is great as it uncovers the wonders that God has made. After all, six days..that's just bollocks!"
He is an idealist Christian, sometimes following the Church of Scotland, but throwing Catholic traits in there too.
Should I ever fall from the path of reason and take on superstition, I'd try to be like that. Afrer 40+ years, I somehow can't see that happening. Men created Gods, not the other way around

I don't think most scientists see a conflict.

Miracles, the existence of God, the virgin birth, just about everything that happened in the Old Testament - the list is endless. The biggest conflict is that science presents theories, looks at the evidence for the theory, accepts it for the moment if the evidence supports it, rejects it if the evidence doesn't support it. Religion puts forward a theory and any lack of evidence, or evidence against it is ignored.

Religion and science are separate and not equal science never accepts theories based on faith, and as far as science is concerned religion is irrelevant.

Most believers can't accept facts that contradict their religious beliefs.