The best book so far about the relationship of science and religion is Ian Barbour's "When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?"

Concerning the "New atheists" who have pushed the conflict scenario (the other three being "independence, dialogue and integration" ) the author writes:
"...these authors have failed to distinguish between scientific and philosophical questions. Scientists, in their popular writings, tend to invoke the authority of science for ideas that are not really part of science itself. Theism and materialism are alternative belief systems, each claiming to encompass all reality. In their epistemology, these authors assume that the scientific method is the only reliable source of knowledge—an assumption sometimes referred to by its critics as scientism."

He then makes clear
"...that the concept of God is not a hypothesis formulated to explain the relation between particular events in the world in competition with scientific hypotheses. Belief in God is primarily a commitment to a way of life in response to
distinctive kinds of religious experience in communities formed by historic traditions; it is not a substitute for scientific research.

"In their metaphysics, these authors have extended
cientific concepts beyond their scientific use to support comprehensive materialistic philosophies. The identification of the real with measurable properties that can be correlated by exact mathematical relationships started in the physical sciences but influenced sciences in other fields.“

The conclusion he makes is:
"Theism, in short, is not inherently in conflict with science, but it does conflict with a metaphysics of materialism."

I'd say that the key word in this sentence is "inherently". It depends, as usual, on how theism is conceptualized. If the deity is conceived more as a "ground of being" or "creator of the cosmic order" than "daddy in heaven" there is no obstacle for a dialogue or even integration of science and religion.