If science were a man he would frown very heavily on the pedestal it is placed upon. - White Crane Feather
Now I don't know who "White Crane Feather" is. That is apparently a name used for posting comments on online forums. I saw that quote and it resonated with me.
Science, we are assured, is fluid and always open to revisions as more knowledge is made available. I believe that as well. I personally have no problem whatsoever with the scientific endeavor. However, I do think it's easy to blur the line between actually "doing" science and philosophizing about science.
So science, we are assured, is superior to theology because it is open to revision. The truth is, theology seems to be open to revision as well (unless you are a religious fundamentalist), and when it does change to accommodate the times, that is supposedly a sign of weakness Go figure.
Therefore I'm quite suspicious when scientists write books which supposedly put the quietus on the God hypothesis using science as the basis. It seems to me they are taking pretty much the same position the theologians they criticize do.
A physicist like Victor Stenger can write a book with the title God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist; biologist Richard Dawkins writes to assure us there is a condition called The God Delusion and that nature's "watchmaker" is The Blind Watchmaker; mathematician John Allen Paulos brings us Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why The Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up; cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett gets busy Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, to name several examples.
And yet other scientists in all those fields look at the same body of evidence and are unwilling to go as far.
That to me is the difference between doing science and philosophizing about it, between using it as a tool and placing it upon a pedestal as the final arbiter of truth.