Science and religion can happily coexist if we understand the limitations of science. Science is limited to the study of that which is “natural,” all matter and energy within the universe. Science can theoretically explain what happens within the universe from the point of its creation to its end, but it cannot — ever — explain what happened before the creation of the universe, what happens after it ends, nor can it ever explain anything beyond the physical confines of the universe. Consequently, theories about, say, multiple universes and the like are intrinsically non-scientific because they cannot be tested, nor are they falsifiable.
The question then becomes, when we contemplate the origins of the universe and life, which is the interest area of overlap between science and religion, do you put your faith in a scientist who theorizes that this universe originated with the collapse of the previous universe, or that this is merely one of an infinite number of universes in which every alternative to every moment in time plays out, or whatever the fashionable theory du jour is, or do you put your faith in a simpler explanation — namely God? Occam’s razor, aka the law of parsimony, tells us that “among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.” Even if we can’t explain or understand God beyond what can be inferred from the physical world and our existence, isn’t it much simpler to attribute the origins of the universe and the life inside it to an intelligent creator than to jump through the absurd number of hoops necessary to come up with a universe that exists and operates in an understandable, logical manner merely by chance?