Evidence of an apparent conflict between religion and science is everywhere: Time Magazine features a debate between a nationally known atheist author and an imminent Christian scientist, a newspaper article condemns those who advocate intelligent design, legislatures fight over what can and cannot be taught in public schools, courts intervene in cases that involve issues of faith and science, three of ten candidates in a presidential debate say they do not believe in evolution while the other seven say they do. The controversy affects national and local policy, influences education, and, some argue, could degrade our way of life if scientific advancement or religious belief and practice are stifled. The conflict is being waged on two levels. The public level is a continuing war among relatively few activists. We see warring books and articles, contentious town meetings, lawsuits, legislative efforts, private schools, and other efforts by each side to win and make sure the other loses. The other level of the debate, like the submerged portion of an iceberg, is larger, more insidious, and ultimately more hurtful to society. This conflict is within the hearts and minds of a vast number of people who sense an "either/or" conflict between the religion they believe and the science they see, hear, and experience. This conflict has no clear battle lines and no obvious winner or loser, but a high mortality rate that includes all those people, particularly young people, who simply opt out. Some check out of religion and become "de-facto agnostics" who claim a faith when the chips are down, but don't practice it or get anything from it. Others check out of science and reason. They allow their faith and their views about the Bible to kill their intellectual curiosity, and they look scientific truth in the face but refuse to see it. For the most part, this conflict boils down to different beliefs among people of faith about scripture, evolution, and the "isms" that each has spawned. Most interpret the Bible and understand science in ways that make finding an intellectually satisfying resolution to the presumed conflict frustrating and even scary. Any attempt to reconcile the two requires learning new words that initially sound like so much gobbledygook, reading an array of books and articles that usually present only one side of a multi-faceted issue and tend to obfuscate rather than enlighten, and making judgments without all the facts. The purpose of Reconciling the