English summary: Theology and Science tend to appear as an irreconcilable contrast, especially in the media. Most times the cases of Galilei and Darwin are mentioned to demonstrate the retreat of the church facing a triumphant science. In the work presented here, Andreas Losch elucidates this conflict in the light of modern historical science and reveals it as a myth. As a position opposite to this conflict model he presents the perspective of Cambridge physicist and priest John C. Polkinghorne, who assumes the consonance of the disciplines. Which other alternatives are there beyond conflict? To answer this question Losch presents the well-known typology of Ian G. Barbour (also physicist and theologian), who portrays three further models as possible relationships of theology and science besides conflict: the independence approach, dialogue or an integration of the disciplines. An excursus compares this typological model - which is characteristic for the Anglo-American sphere - with the more continental European orientated typology of the German theologian Jurgen Hübner. What these different geographical roots mean will become clear throughout the course of the work. The Bible has to be taken seriously, but not literally. Losch asks about the definition and meaning of critical realism in science, philosophy and theology. Following this, he presents two prominent German approaches to the dialogue between science and theology and compares them with the Anglo-American model on the basis of critical realism. The approaches to be compared are the theory of time by the physicist A.M.K Müller und the Gestaltkreis concept by the physician and philosopher Viktor von Weizsäcker. The conclusion at the end of the work will integrate the different models into a highly original proposal for the dialogue of the disciplines.