As an Evangelical Christian and a Chemist: I like to say that I take the Bible in a "natural" rather than a "literal" way. What I mean by that is I let the context and style of the Bible inform me on how I should comprehend the meaning. (I try to let Scripture interpret Scripture) e.g. If the Bible passage is poetry, I don't interpret literally and I take into account the use of metaphor and other poetic devices. If the Bible is narrative, I take it at face value. If it is a letter, I read it as a letter and take into account that it is written to a particular audience. For the Science vs religion question, I don't see how there is a problem. Both topics answer different questions. e.g. Take Genesis. It is interesting because it is a sort of narrative but has elements of Hebrew poetry in it, (having studied a little Hebrew myself). Genesis answers the question "Who created the world" (God), and "what does that mean?" (He is our loving rightful Ruler). Science tries to discover the mechanism or "how" of creation. (e.g. the current mechanism is evolution). Going to Genesis, an ancient hebrew text, and asking it modern scientific "how" questions is like going to a road map and asking it "how are roads built": Both were not written to deal with those kind of questions. Having said this, I will still respect other Christians who interpret Genesis in such a way that there is no room for evolution. To me this isn't a crucial subject. To me, what is crucial is the person and work of Christ.

I think that it is foolish to take the Bible or any other religious book literally. The Bible should always be considered as a guide to life and not as an instruction manual.