Does Science refute God?

There is this interesting debate sponsored by intelligence squared about the proposition "Science refutes God." The debaters were composed of two scientists and two non-scientists, one from each side. In favor of the motion  was Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist) and Michael Shermer (author and founding member of Skeptic magazine) and against the motion were Ian Hutchinson (nuclear scientist and engineer) and Denis D'Souza (author). The side for the motion got 37% of the voete before the debate while the side against the motion got 34%. After the debate, the side for the motion got 50% while the other side got 38% of the vote. The winner of the debate was based on the side which had the highest increase of support after the debate. With a 13% increase for the positive side, the winning team went to the side for the motion. With the debate being held in New York, I had a high premonition that the positive side would win, and in fact was correct as shown by the results.

I am a secular humanist, having said this, I would say that science does not refute God. Why? Simply because the domain of science is different. Science is based on testable facts, it is experiential, it is governed by the scientific method (hypothesis, data gathering, experimentation, conclusion) and most of all, it is dynamic. On the other hand, the concept of God is based on a belief, most are unreasonable, rooted usually on a pre-existing text purported to be the "revealed truth" by its respective believers and is therefore, static and permanent.

Science teaches us about the workings of the world and as such, takes the question about everything into the realm of the world itself. In that, science works on the principle about observability, repeatability, testability and of course, intellectual honesty. Belief in God takes us to religion, which practically has the monopoly on the unknown and insists on unprovable, unconfirmable and unverifiable experiences.

Science has over the centuries provided mankind with a better understanding of the world and the things around has, has improved human life through technology and provides us greater understanding still about the reality that is existence. Religion however, has become merely a reactionary force. Gone were the days when it held sway over the life and death of man. It's monopoly over the truth shattered by the veritable facts of science. It's attempt to explain everything about the world has been, in most respects, been replaced by the reasonable and orderly workings of science. Indeed, religion has been relegated to the sidelines, at least with regards to the interpretation of reality. And unfortunately, by clinging to the idea that not all things are explained by science, it has fallen into the trap that has for long been its domain, that is, it explains those which science has not yet explained. And there is for me nothing wrong with that, as long as such religious idiosyncracies are left to the personal life of each believer.

Science is the best instrument man has in its quest to understand better the universe and himself. Although science cannot really refute God for the reasons explained above, I would adopt Stephen Hawking's assertion that science makes it nearly impossible for one to believe that there is God.