"Most of the current controversies associated with science revolve around the vastly different reactions people both within the scientific community and outside it have, not to the strange features of the universe that we can observe for ourselves, but rather to those features we cannot observe.
In my own field of physics, theorists hotly debate the possible existence of an underlying mathematical beauty associated with a host of new dimensions that may or may not exist in nature.
School boards, legislatures and evangelists hotly debate the possible existence of an underlying purpose to nature that similarly may or may not exist...."
An interesting essay...
I continue to believe that much of the tension between science and religion can be dissipated when the protagonists realize that there are different sources of authority between the two realms.
Science can no more prove that there is no God than Christians can prove that there IS a God. The atheistic point of view is most assuredly outside the realm of science (and logic) because you cannot prove a negative -- and this is why I have some issues with otherwise competent scientists who speak ex cathedra and declare that there is no God, and that such belief is dangerous.
On the other hand, faith in God is not subject to the sorts of observation and testing that characterize scientific research. We can infer God by looking at God's creation, by how lives are changed, by our sense of what is right and wrong, and by the sense of God's presence in our lives. We can look at history and note that people who were eye witnesses of Jesus' ministry on earth not only preached the Good News, but were willing to die for the sake of their faith.
But none of this is scientific proof. In the final analysis it is our faith and actions arising out of our faith that define us, not our ability to provide a rigorous scientific proof of God's existence.