The Hyperplanes of Science and Religion

There are 2 views on the relationship between science and religion.

The simplest (View 1) says that there is no relationship at all between the two. We can imagine science and religion here as occupying disjoint multi-dimensional planes of discourse or hyperplanes in space.
This is an easy way out for any possible conflict between the two. Even when they do literally conflict, as in the case about the time the universe was created, there is no logical contradiction if the unit of time is only meant figuratively.
View 1 is an a way unsatisfactory, having both of the bad sides of Einstein's "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." If the hyperplanes are disjoint, neither can say anything about the other.

View number 2, on the other hand, views science and religion in the same hyperplane of discourse. They can occupy different areas of the hyperplane, and not come to contradiction with each other. Imagine a normal plane where science occupies an area on the left and religion on the right. An example is when religion talks about loving-kindness and compassion, and science talks about mass, velocity and acceleration.
However, the body of scientific knowledge will grow with time, and sooner or later, will come to intersect with religion. Evolution definitely bring many religious beliefs in question. The discovery of mirror neurons gives some insight on how compassion developed.
Altruism is an unexpected outcome of the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
In View 2, science and religion can avoid the lame and blind properties referred to in the Einstein quote above. Scientists can have beliefs, which although unproven, motivates their research. The assumptions used in science are often such beliefs used as hypotheses.

When both science and religion address the same topic, and we agree that they are not speaking in different tongues, they cannot be in logical contradiction. And if they do, one of them must be abandoned.
We can then subdivide View 2 into View 2A, where religion holds the absolute truth, and View 2B, where religion is to be modified if ultimately found unscientific.
View 2A is the position of the fundamentalists. Here religion becomes blind faith followed fanatically by its believers.
In View 2B, we use the phrase "ultimately found unscientific", because the scientific community can be wrong for a long time, before somebody realize develop a better theory. Science here is seen as approximations to truth. It is to be noted, that not all religions can fit into View 2B, in fact many religions will fall apart if some of its tenets are taken away.
This is where Buddhism differs from many other religions: "The view endorsed by the majority of Buddhists, is represented by the Dalai Lama who is willing to jettison Buddhist doctrines if shown to be scientifically false (of course with reasonable care, since scientific truth can change also with time)" (see Brouhaha over Buddha on the Brain) .

Nothing is absolutely sacred in Buddhism, all can be questioned. The truth is to be experienced individually, the Buddha can only point the way.

Related: Science and Buddhism
Ajahn Brahmavamso on Buddhism as Science
A civilized debate on Faith
Brouhaha over the "Buddha on the Brain"