I also agree with what another member said about not understanding why people think science and religion cannot coexist.
But then we did research. And we learned. And we realized that these things do not require any deity to happen. And that's where this conflict origins in. And it's still going on until today.
All these things I mentioned, and much much more, we once thought to be religious stuff, that had to do with gods of any sort. Why should the Big Bang or the theory of Abiogenesis be any different? Right now, we have theories, and many religious people say "we don't know how it happened, so God did it". While atheists and many other people say "we don't know how it happened, but we can find it out". You don't know how Abiogenesis works exactly, or how the Big Bang happened. I don't know it either. There are scientific theories, and religious tales, that all try to explain it. But the scientists keep working, gathering data, they progress. It's only a matter of time.
After all, "science" (I hate the way it's spoken of as though it is something in itself rather than a method... it would be much more helpful to speak of the scientific consensus.) was wrong in the past, things considered true now may well be proven wrong in the future... Therefore, I believe the sensible thing is to search for yourself and see where your search takes you, never believe something just because a scientist says it, anymore than you would because a vicar says it.
That every now and then a theory turns to be wrong is a natural part of the process. It simply proves that the process works, because scientists keep checking each others work, to ensure that it's the most accurate and up to date as possible. And you say that this is a reason not to "believe" science?
Saying "scientists were often wrong" sounds as if all religious concepts were always true. We know the names of over 2500 deities, and thousands of religions. Do you think all are true? Is Quetzacoatl as true as the christian God? Nope. According to the Aztec, the christian God would be nonsense, and Quetzacoatl would exist. And according to the Christians, it's the other way round. And you say that both are more believable than science?
I rather stick to people who work, who check each others work, who want to ensure that it's the most accurate and up to date, than to those, who keep repeating the same stuff since thousands of years, ignoring evidence and logic.
Not to mention that you don't have to "believe" scientists or science. The information is there, it's all for you to learn, to check yourself. There is no belief needed. You don't believe what a scientists says? Then go check his work and what his work is based on. However, 99% of those who doubt science are unwilling or not capable to check the work. And that is plain ridiculous. It's like saying "nah, the sun doesn't shine" while refusing to open your eyes.
Unlike with religion, you don't have to take a jump, to trust science. You don't have to assume things to be true, for which there is neither evidence nor a logic theory. All you need is an open mind, an objective view, the will to learn, and the education and intelligence to understand the concepts.
But so many religious people are just not interested in learning. Like, on the Yahoo website, there is a comment section. On each scientific article, religious people show up, and mock and question it. For example, when there is an article about evolution, they ask "how can we have evolved from monkey, if there are still monkeys?". But that question has been answered since a long time. And it has been asked a thousand times and answered a thousand times. And the people asking it could look up the answer within five minutes. But they are not interested in learning. They are not interested in educating themself. They ask not to be taught and improve themselves, but rather because they think of it as some fight.
Or dinosaurs. Whenever there is an article about dinosaurs, people ask "but why did we find human footsteps next to dinosaur footsteps". And again, this question has been answered decades ago. But the people are not willing to listen listen, to understand it. They can talk but are deaf. Because they want to be. They rather want to be stupid and uneducated before they'd be willing to learn something that might be in conflict with what most of them were brainwashed into as children.