Fergie, et al, for some, science presupposes the NON-existence of God. So there you have it. Loggerheads. The Mills method of scientific reasoning does not allow for the introduction of non-provable categories. And science IS a method of applied human reason. The hypothesis must be testable and repeatable.

The hypothetical aspect of science, though is most interesting, especially what is going on in cosmology, cosmogony and physics these days. It is amazing to me that from observable data and the tools of science that some of these bastions of human reason can postulate parallel universes where every conceivable and even inconceivable scenarios may take place, INFINITELY! But let there be no mention of a God! Which is harder to swallow? That right now there are herds of blue and orange polka dotted elephants and twenty headed dinosaurs stampeding through you house and super nova exploding all around you just a dimension away or that God may indeed exist?

That science makes mistakes is entirely true. In fact if there were no mistakes science could never progress for it is by our mistakes and failures that we learn and narrow our investigative focus. Until we got away from the Aristotelian didactic of absolute truth and irrefutable logic did we begin to progress. This was Aquinas's realm and that of the old RCC. Rather science uses the inductive method over the deductive method of reasoning. Deduction has its place but the premises are ALWAYS subject to inspection and revision. And if that is true (look Ma, no hands!), then you must allow for the possibility of a God.

Just the same, you must allow for the possiblity of a human mind with the ablitiy to comprehend the universe, for without it, the universe does not exist.