Gah, too much to quote and too little time, so I'll take the liberty of freehand to clear a few things up.
First off, science and religion are historically two halves of the same whole. Both began as knowledge-producing institutions to understand the world around us.
Religion, or organized religion, has entered into doctrine such that it can no longer be legitimately questioned or modified (and this is a bad thing). It has remained a period-specific means of understanding our world, and has not been adjusted with time (or the few adjustments that have come took some serious effort to put into place).
Science, by contrast, which really emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Enlightenment, is a rational answer to the failures of religion to accept new forms of evidence. In many ways, science is the complete opposite of religion in its perpetual skepticism and acceptance of new facts modifying its original premises. Whereas religion has entered a static and doctrinal state of affairs, science's basic premise ensures that understanding continues to be advanced. (And this is a good thing /Martha).
Where the lines begin to blur is when we look at this issue of doctrine and rigidity. Religion hasn't always been in the state its afforded in today's society. At many points in history, religion was quite fluid. It is only since the establishment of an official order of Christianity (e.g. the true establishment of the hierarchical Vatican) that any religion entered total doctrinal supervision. At that point in history, religion began to move more and more into the realm of power politics and had less and less to do with understanding the world. This is not to say religion was never used in power structures before (we can go right back to the Sumerians and see that, indeed, it was), but the role widened.
Science's very premise is on perpetual skepticism and the continued requirement for proof, not to mention knowledge for the sake of knowledge, rather than power relationships. (Yet a very bright man once said that knowledge is power, and vice versa). However, since its modern foundations in the Enlightenment, Science has also become more and more entrenched into power politics. That said, unlike religion, science has maintained most of its basic premise. Where the danger signs come into play is on acceptance of science for science's sake. Somewhere along the line, mainstream society lost their skepticism of scientific discovery, and much of it is now being accepted purely on the word of the researchers involved. The vast majority of experiments are NEVER replicated, and when they are we often get different results. It is becoming increasingly harder to modify some of the basic principles of science - we need only look at Newton's laws as an example of this (Einstein's work violated much of Newton's in its early stages, and took some time to be accepted by the scientific community at large). Science is also becoming increasingly privatized, out of the view of the layman. Instead, we depend on specialists to tell us what is true. These specialists are not affiliated with religion so for the most part we take their word on some element of faith in their principles. In addition, powerful lobby groups for science are infiltrating national power structures further and further so that science now influences government instead of religion. This wouldn't be a problem (Science's goals are rationalism and the betterment of humanity) except for the specialist understanding, or priviledged level of knowledge, which scientists as a whole do not readily afford to the layman outside their cluster.
I'm sure in some ways my historical analysis sounds very conspiracy-esque, but that is not my intention. Rather, I'm illustrating a point that we must be careful so as not to make claims about science and religion as two entirely separate phenomena, one good and one bad, but rather recognize that they are both rooted in the same historical context and have followed similar patterns of development since their inception.
To say religion is worthless while science is all knowing is to take a very specific and very naive historical story. Both have a role to play, and both are more similar in ways that a great many on both sides of the spectrum refuse to acknowledge. Ultimately, they both began as a means of knowing our world, and both have diverged from that original purpose.
At any rate, for an atheist to say they do not believe in God because of the evidence is to have faith that the means of producing those evidence are entirely truthful and unflawed, which anyone with a serious science education can tell you is a line of crap. Science is still in its infancy.
Incidentally, before anyone starts questioning me as some quack making up a line, my training is in several areas of science, including Molecular Genetics, Sociology (especially Power/Conflict sociology), and Psychology. I'm not religious, and I do not participate in any organized Faith.
