Wow, how did I let this post slip by?
There isn't necessarily a dichotomy between religion and science. It depends on the religion. I can engineer a religion that doesn't interfere with science. Hell, if I were to do some research, perhaps I can find one!
Catholicism may come close. For example, they are officially agnostic over the issue of evolution. Past and present popes have said that it is a scientific fact that people should appreciate. However, they haven't made it a part of their doctrine so you're not required to accept it to be catholic. While it seems obvious that a religion needn't attach itself to scientific findings, this hasn't always been true. That's why they're taking this stance now; they've learned from their past mistakes. If your religion makes scientific claims then science can prove your religion wrong!
This is, of course, my point. Religion needn't interfere with science but if your religion makes scientifically testable claims, then the two
will conflict! This is the case with
Creationism, a very particular brand of one of the
Abrahamic religions. In North America, this will be
fundamentalist Christianity...
On the contrary! I'd say more but I suspect you may be confused with what is meant by the term "creationist." At the very least, creationism is the very antithesis of science...
Where do I start?
Creationists are using the "modern literal concept of year" so we can use that term to show their error. Years as a measurement of time is not meaningless to scientists. Because we understand
spacetime as well as we do, we can make sense of time and space regardless of the
reference frames at play. Finally, creationism says a lot more than that there was merely a beginning, hence the conflict...
It's actually rather difficult to be a creationist and a scientist. You'd have to study a field of science far removed from the claims of creationism, like
material science or something...