Science and Religion
There is a difference of domain, it is often claimed, between science and religion. Theologians say it so as to not be held responsible to science in their claims. Scientists say it so as to not be held responsible by religionists. Mormons say it too.
Science answers the questions of "how did things happen?" Religion answers the question "why do things happen?" Two completely seperate and non-overlapping sets of questions. That would be nice, but as a wise man once said, "there goes another great idea about to be murdered by a gang of facts." This separation is simply non-existent.
It is not the scientists that cross the line usually. It is the religionists. Popular religion, our religion, talks about Adam, the creation, the flood, geographic location, genetic lineages and much, much more. All of these things, if we really maintain that they did, in fact happen, can be subjected to the question, "How?"
Simply put, there would be no conflict between science and religion only if our religion talked about things that didn't and never did exist. It is possible, lot's of people do it. Other go the other way and define their religion as what ever science is. This is what Hawkin and Eistein mean when they say God, the immutable physical laws of the universe.
I mention this to say that we cannot simply evade the question of evolution by this technique. Mormon doctrine doesn't allow it. The how's are intricately interwoven with the why's and I don't think they can or should be disentangled. It is with this in mind that we approach evolution, the epitomy of the Science vs. Religion conflict.
Some people try to disengage from the science vs. religion debate by claiming that the two deal with two separate questions, how and why respectively. This is not entirely true for the hows and the why are intimately connected. Any mention by religionists regarding creation and human nature are attempts to answer how questions and are, therefore, open to scientific criticism.