In 1633 Pope Urban the VIII ordered a Tuscan Physicist and Astronomer named Galileo Galilei to stand trial under the auspices of the Holy Inquisition, for the crime of Heresy. Like many of his predecessors, Galileo's findings often ran contrary to church teachings, including several key passages of scripture which defined the earth as a stationary object in which all other heavenly objects must revolve. Galileo's findings enhanced by the use of the first modern astronomical telescopes and the theories of Copernicus taught the blasphemous contention that the Sun was the center of the known universe and that the earth merely revolved around it. This concept, known as "heliocentricity" was in direct contrast to the Bible which taught the earth is stationary and the other celestial bodies moved around it.
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. - Ecclesiastes 1:5
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved - 1 Chronicles 16:30
Galileo was subsequently confined to house arrest for the remainder of his life, and he was compelled to publicly recant his assertions of a sun centered universe. And unfortunately this wasn't the only case of Church's influence in science, as expressed by the "Suppression of Heresy" throughout the ages. Keppler, Copernicus, and many others all felt the influence of the church in their attempts to enlighten mankind as to the true nature of the universe in which we reside. Scientific knowledge it seemed, was an enemy to religion.
Today the enmity between science and religion continues, and unfortunately, a belief system that has recently gained widespread support seeks to once more silence or impede mankind's understanding of the cosmos, and the universe in which we live by imposing its own untested and unproven belief system into the classroom and the courtroom. That unproved belief system is generally referred to as "atheism".
Atheism is defined as either a "lack of belief in a deity or deities" or a "belief that there is no deity or deities". But don't let an Atheist hear that last one. Learning their lack of belief is actually a form of belief is more than most atheist minds can handle. Spell it out for them and most will blow a head gasket. But it is nonetheless a form of belief. After all, the atheist can neither prove his claims that a deity or deities do not exist any more than the theist can prove that a deity or deities do exist. And a claim that cannot be proved must be relegated to a belief.
ATHEISM:
The doctrine that there is no deity - Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
The doctrine or belief that there is no God - Princeton University Wordnet
The doctrine or belief that there is no God - Dictionary.com
While atheists will no doubt balk at the concept that what to them constitutes science is to the rest of the world merely a belief, like the beliefs of the theists, which can be neither proved nor disproved, yet it is nonetheless merely a belief system. And not a very good one. Atheism is the bastion of the negative, and the assertion of cosmic futility. All life is essentially "worm-food" and thus all efforts in this world are ultimately in vain, and only provide immediate impact and effect. This is a depressing and gloomy view of life, and while the atheist will proclaim as loudly as the religious zealot the veracity of his "beliefs", they are nonetheless based in mere speculation, and do not withstand the acid test of science.
Science on the other hand makes more specific observations, and good science does not seek to credit nor discredit the existence of a deity or deities but instead seeks to show us what can be demonstrated or proved and help expand our minds to ponder that which cannot. Unfortunately science does not stop there, and today, like the partisan politics of the ultra-conservative republican Christian right, and the liberals who tend to posses the majority of the atheist population, science, or at least its advocates are now essentially at war with the theists and religionists, primarily due to the actions of a growing misguided ultra conservative and ultra ignorant branch of Christianity known as "evangelicalism" and a new ultra liberal movement presenting itself under the misnomer of "Progressivism". On the one hand, Evangelical Christians for some reason have decided to focus on the Torah, a book that was written for the Jews, instead of the New Testament, which contains the deeds and words of he who's name they claim to bear. And in doing so have seemingly based their faith on several untenable positions including the unfortunate conclusion that the earth upon which we dwell spun into existence a brief 6000 years ago, which of course anyone with a 6th 
grade education and a modicum of reason knows is incorrect. The earth as science reveals, is approximately 4.5 Billion years old, give or take a few millenia, and the universe about 3 times that figure, or some 13 billion years old. While science may have gotten the figure wrong, they're not "that" wrong. There is no doubt that the earth is definitely older than 6000 years, and chances are our current calculations which have held up for decades, are fairly correct.
In fact, this contention is the key factor driving science and religion apart today. The religious doctrine of "intelligent design" being forced in the classroom, the introduction of museums claiming to be scientific that teach the 6000 year creation and sport exhibits of early man riding saddled dinosaurs, along with other attempts by the ultra Conservative "evangelical" Christians to compel the rest of us to accept their infantile accounts of creation and explanations that were disproved in the dark ages is fueling this polarization between the two schools of thought, and modern science propped up by progressive atheism is committed to muzzle any talk of the spiritual or supernatural. After all, science, still smarting from a few thousand years of stifling persecution that slowed and often halted mankind's knowledge by the mother church at Rome is not keen at giving the religionists any leverage in the classroom again, particularly given recent attempts to reopen such debates as the Scopes Monkey Trials and the forcing of intelligent design in the classroom. Thus an ever widening chasm between those in science convinced that atheism is the only valid conclusion and the "pseudo-educated" who's education is hampered by the teachings of a few misguided religionists who declare their interpretations of the scriptures to be above science, as well as all other interpretations, and thus substitute faith for untenable positions like the 6000 year creation period.
On the other hand we have the new "progressives" in which atheism has become the standard, and those not ascribing to this belief system are mocked, ridiculed and ultimately driven out of progressive blogs and groups by the closed mindedness of those calling themselves progressive. Religion and faith have become a subject of ridicule and scorn among the new progressive liberals, and making sport of the spiritual is the mainstay of the movement. All one needs do to confirm this is mention personal beliefs in a progressive blog, or turn on shows like "Real Time", with Bill Maher and observe as Maher mocks the very notion of a deity as ignorance, and superstition.
The fact is however, neither position is truly "open" nor intellectually honest. These are both "belief systems" that empower the believer to conclude the matter within their own minds and settle into the comfortable complacency of religious or atheistic fanaticism. The closed mind is after all a mind at peace with itself. It has concluded its quest for knowledge and now seeks to only reinforce those conclusions that it has already settled upon. Which is as unscientific of an approach as one could take.
Science requires an open mind until something has been proved, or disproved. Thus the conclusion that a deity, or deities do not exist is in fact, an unscientific one. It is arrived at by the lack of conclusive demonstrable proof, which is not a valid foundation for basing such a sweeping conclusion upon. The lack of proof that a God or god's exist is not in and of itself a scientific benchmark for concluding that one or all does not. After all, many correct scientific theories were made long before proof or even demonstrable evidence could be shown indicating their validity.
Example. Around 1800 a German physician named Franz Joseph Gall developed a theory known as Phrenology, which speculated as to the localization of brain function. At the time there was no demonstrable evidence of this new science, and it was entirely based on Gall's observations that essentially equated to reading the bumps on peoples heads. In fact, Gall got it all wrong with regards to the functional areas of the brain.
Nonetheless, the concept was correct. Localized function was indeed true and valid science, and Dr Gall's "intuitions" were indeed right on target, at least with regards to the concept of localization. The fact that it had not yet been proved did not diminish the veracity of localized brain function. And this is just one example in a long line of theories based on intuition and general observation that later were proved by demonstrable experiments and or evidence.
Another example can be found in the observations of the Greek Astronomer Aristarchus who lived almost 2000 years before the first astronomical telescopes were invented. During the time of Aristarchus, astronomy consisted of what could be seen with the naked eye, and was mingled with astrology and the occult. To the naked eye, the earth is stationary and the planets, and stars seem to rise and fall around us, thus astronomy at the time of Aristarchus concluded that the earth was the center of the known universe and all else revolved around us. Aristarchus however concluded that the sun and not the earth was the central object of the cosmos, and that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around. And while Aristarchus had no valid demonstrable science to demonstrate this theory, in fact, most of his calculations were wrong and were indeed based on incorrect observations and conclusions, he nonetheless was correct in that the earth indeed orbits the sun, and not the other way around. Of course it wasn't until close to 2000 years later that his theory known as heliocentricity was proved correct by demonstrable and verifiable scientific observation, calculation and experiment. But that didn't negate the validity of the conclusion. Thus we see that the lack of demonstrable evidence does not necessarily disprove a theory and thus cannot be relied upon to reperesent any sort of theory as fact.
On the other hand,the appearance of demonstrable evidence does not always confirm a theory either. Several centuries after the death of the Greek astronomer Aristarchus who's accurate yet flawed methods correctly placed the sun and not the earth at the center of the known universe (which now constitutes merely our solar system), the Roman astronomer, Ptolemy, (Claudius Ptolemaeus) presented the world with his own, geocentric model of the universe, which ignored the hypotheses of Aristarchus, and instead placed the earth back at the center of the universe, like Aristotle. However unlike Aristotle, Ptolemy's model actually provided accurate predictions of the positions of the planets, the stars and even accurately predicted eclipses. Ptolemy's model was thus widely adapted, even by the Arab world as it accurately provided a literal "celestial almanac" (which he actually published) that foretold the exact positions of the planets, stars and other heavenly objects and occurrences, on a provable, observable basis. There was in fact, just one problem with Ptolemy's model of the solar system.
It was all wrong.
While his method could accurately tell us precisely where the planets would be at any given moment, as well as the positions of the stars and times of eclipse events, the method he used was inherently flawed. It required the earth to be at the center of the solar system and that, as Aristarchus accurately deduced, was not the case. This required Ptolemy to invent a complex and convoluted orbit for the planets, which included staggered loops in orbit at key intervals to make the math work. But it did work.
Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system was not at all accurate in its content, but in its predictive capabilities, it was spot on, thus demonstrating that just because a scientific theory works, doesn't mean it's good science. Ptolemy's predictions were right, but his formula was all wrong.
Given the above examples, its clear that good science is sometimes bad science with good results, and bad science can be good science with bad results. Therefore, the concept of a supernatural or supreme intelligence, or a spiritual plain of existence of some sort, falls at least in the category of reasonable hypotheses. After all, there is some peripheral evidence and reasonable conclusions that lead to the possibility of the existence of a deity, deities or at least, the supernatural.
One example would be the testimonies of billions of human beings over the expanse of recorded time. True their descriptions and explanations differ, but most of them point to a deity or deities and a spiritual plain of existence of some kind, and thus share a common discernible thread. One can dismiss them all as collectively deluded if one chooses, but that doesn't remove their testimonies nor does it discredit them. The fact is human intuition often is demonstrated to be correct, regardless of the validity of the supporting data. Unsupported intuition is often correct as we saw so plainly with the deductions of Aristarchus and Dr Gall. And good evidence as demonstrated by Ptolemy, can sometimes give us bad conclusions, or be based on incorrect foundations. Therefore to dismiss the theists because of poor evidence, or even a lack thereof, is to act in an unscientific manner.
In fact, science ultimately points to the existence of the supernatural with regards to creation of space-time, matter and all existence, or at least provides for the possibility.
Science teaches us that some 13.73 billion years ago our universe as we know it came into existence through an event known commonly as the "big bang", which consisted of a sub atomic particle known as a quark being highly compressed to an "infinite density" while simultaneously being super-heated to an incredible temperature not measurable in modern science. A heat so hot that it cannot literally be described. This caused the mass to explode and or expand creating the compounds and noble gases that created all the matter existing today. In fact science can describe events to within nano seconds of this event to a period known as the Planck Epoch, which literally lasted about a trillionth of a second, where space time and gravity separated creating separate forces. And some science goes even further, with theories like the "Big Bounce" which contests that "our big bang" was not the "first" big bang, but merely a link in a chain of events where the universe is created and destroyed in an infinite cycle of expansion and implosion.
Unfortunately none of these or other scientific theories answers the one question that faith and religion has sought to answer since the dawn of recorded history. Creation after all must define the moment when matter itself came into existence. Not "our" matter but all matter. After all, if the first sub atomic particle or particles or quarks were compressed and super-heated until it or they exploded (not an actual explosion mind you, but thats another story)creating the known universe, where did they come from? Where did the matter for the "primordial atom" come from, and how was it created? Science stops there, or more accurately, a few nanoseconds from that point. Prior to the big bang, science does not seem to want to tread.
That they "always existed" is not an answer. Not a scientific one anyway. This explanation offered by a scientist (with a straight face) is in and of itself, supernatural. How long in an "always"? When does an "always" begin? If an always never began, then we are defining matter, or our universe, as "eternal". And the concept of "eternal" existence, even if we're just referring to a sub-atomic particle, is just about as supernatural of a concept as one could produce. For something to be "eternal" is beyond the realm of science as demonstrated in the disproving of Einstein's "cosmological constant" and thus cannot be demonstrated nor comprehended in the pretext of human understanding. Science teaches of actions and reactions, cause and effect. Not "forever". But what is even more difficult to correlate is the concept of trying to explain what force or energy first stirred in the early morning dawn of creation, that caused the first expansion of matter and the creation of space-time. In order for whatever reaction occurred, some "action" must have occurred prior to the initial event in order for the event to have occurred in the first place. If the original "stuff" was superheated then where did the energy come from to create the heat? These questions point to the logical deduction that the matter was not created from "nothing" and the event was not singular at all but merely a naturally occurring (albeit infrequent) process that most likely has occurred before and will occur again. After all, the concept of "something from nothing" is usually the argument made by the theist, and not the atheist, or the scientist. Yet when cornered on the question of pre-primordial matter and energy most atheists and scientists are reduced to the something from nothing theory which is no theory at all, but merely capitulation to the looming supernatural possibilities that are evident at that point. Some will attempt to delay the inevitable by hypothesizing on the "Big Bounce" theory and others that point to "our" big bang being only one of many but ultimately they all arrive at the same point. What happened before that? And what created that, caused that, etc...
The question is binary. Either all things appeared from nothing in some manner that can only be described as supernatural from our perspective, or something always existed, which of course demands the eternal which is also a supernatural concept from our temporal, physical perspective.
I recently read an article by an apparent atheist trying to discredit these questions as "the questions of children" while he went on to explain the natural condition of "space-time being created from nothing". In his strained logic he attempts to discredit the supernatural while in the same breath concluding that all matter, including space time and gravity sprang forth from nothing. He used the fact that sub atomic particles 
randomly appear in a particle accelerator to validate his claim that there was "nothing" before the big bang, and that all matter was literally created from "nothing", albeit minus a creator. He concludes therefore that it is perfectly natural for matter to just randomly appear out of nothing and purports this scientifically untenable position as fact. This of course is an intellectually lazy argument that ends where it should begin. Concluding that because the sub atomic particle "seems" to appear from nothing, that it must therefore be natural for matter to be created from nothing is neither a scientific nor even a logical deduction. In fact it dismisses several schools of scientific thought, including dimensional theory, which is the most likely explanation for the random appearance of sub atomic particles in the super collider.
Clearly logic dictates that this confirms not the absurd notion of something from nothing, but instead the validity of a multi-dimensional universe. After all, scientists have speculated for decades that gravity is actually seeping into our universe from another, perhaps master dimension, not to mention that black holes themselves also support the existence of a multi-dimensional universe. Black holes are created when a massive star collapses upon itself and becomes infinitely dense, and hot (sound familiar?) and thus explodes, appearing to rip a hole in the fabric of space time. The spinning hole literally draws in all matter unlucky enough to move within its gravitational pull. This matter includes even light and gravity, which like all matter drawn in, disappears once passing the edge of the black hole, referred to as the Event Horizon. It does not eject from the other side. It does not "burn up" and leave gas or residual matter. It simply seems to "disappear" beyond the Event Horizon, no more to be seen or measured, which could indicate the presence of other dimensions, not visible to the physical dimension in which we exist, yet that are nonetheless real.
Thus the supernatural is just that which cannot be explained by natural laws of this universe, which something in another dimension of course cannot be, until that dimension can be measured or observed. And if that dimension cannot be directly observed, then perhaps its effect on this dimension can be, so some might argue, like the author of the above referenced article attempts to, that this makes it not "supernatural" but simply natural yet advanced. This of course constitutes merely a word game designed to distract from the obvious significance of other dimensions, and their implications with regards to the idea of a "spiritual" plain of existence that may indeed be real, just difficult to quantify in this physical dimension in which we exist.
In other words, science, quantum theory, string theory, standard theory, all point to at least the possibility of another dimension in which one might define the "spiritual" places which religion has for so long testified to the existence of. While it may not be a correct deduction, it certainly is a plausible deduction that one could make given the information available. After all if a dimension in which we can neither see, nor measure, does indeed exist and accounts for the spontaneous appearance of matter in this dimension, then its certainly viable that this dimension that may exist in parallel with ours could therefore provide a foundation for the "spirit world" belief held by so many religions and belief systems throughout recorded history.
Thus its certainly plausible that the big bang was not a "singular" event but a naturally occurring one that occurs each time a massive star collapses in on itself, becoming infinitely dense and hot.When these "big bangs" occur due to the collapse of a massive star, a hole is ripped in the fabric of space time, and the reverberation of this explosion literally creates a new "frequency" of matter cohesion, hence, another dimension, that expands like our own dimension, into another universe that exists on a dimensional plain that we can neither see nor readily access. The process can be likened to the frequencies of an FM wave that can be modulated to different hertz cycles and hence can coexist in the same signal but on different frequencies, thus occupying essentially the same position in space time albeit at different intervals of frequency and hence can only be received by tuning your receiver to the correct frequency. If the fabric of space time can be warped or altered, then it is practical to deduce that multiple instances of space time can occupy the same sub space area by resonating at different frequencies, thus only perceptible to those capable of interpreting those frequencies.
Think of the possibilities.
Just like a tuning fork provides a different tone based on how hard it is struck, and that sound of course is merely a different analog frequency that resonates when the tuning fork is struck, with no two tones being identical, so to when a star collapses on itself, no two implosion events would be identical with regards to the magnitude of the event. Think of it like amplitude on a carrier wave. The carrier wave being sub space, and the amplitude being the magnitude of the implosion. The amplitude would vary depending on the mass of the star which would determine the resonating frequency in the shift of space time, thus creating multiple frequencies on the same carrier wave (space-time) and thus multiple universes, each resonating at its own primordial frequency could exist within the same subspace region. Each star would thus create its own "big bang" that would be slightly different than the "big bangs" created by other stars collapsing in on themselves, based on their mass, density, and other variances too numerous to mention. Literally, worlds without end.
These other dimensions could of course easily account for the spiritual dimensions so long believed by religionists, albeit not necessarily with the attributes or purposes attributed them. Just like Ptolemy, who's cosmological model accurately predicted specific movements of the celestial objects yet did so based on incorrect deductions, so to its possible that mankind with its penchant for a belief in the supernatural, has indeed hit the proverbial nail on the head without actually knowing why, or how.
At the end of the day, when all the facts are weighed, one can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of a deity, nor spirituality, but we can point to evidence of such. Whether its good evidence is up to the observer, and the facts, which are yet to be proved. But evidence it is nonetheless. Evidence of other dimensions as demonstrated by the random appearance of sub atomic particles, or as seen in a black hole, as matter, gravity, even space time seem to disappear beyond the event horizon never to be measured again, can indeed be referenced by the religionists as a possible sign of a spiritual plain where a deity or deities could indeed exist, waiting to welcome some spiritual stuff dwelling within our bodies. Or any variation on that concept. If after all science cannot tell us what happened prior to the big bang, or how there was any matter at all to be superheated, compressed, and what superheated it and compressed it, then how can the atheist point to science when attempting to discredit the theist?
Clearly science does neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife or the existence of a spiritual plane of existence. But when one examines the current collective knowledge and wisdom on the matter of creation, clearly science does at least permit for the possibility of the spiritual, and not in a mystical, but in a natural and real sense, only to be understood as our understanding of dimensional theory expands as does our ability to observe and or measure dimensional impact. Until that time, the presentation of atheism as scientific deduction is an erroneous assumption and is not conducive to learning, but in fact is a catalyst for intellectual stagnation and conclusions that are based not on science, but on personal beliefs that do not always hold up in the light of science. Belief in a deity, an afterlife, a primordial existence, etc, are thus no longer relegated to the realm of the theists, but instead offer new and challenging questions for science, and the rest of us to examine and contemplate.
And maybe, just maybe, if there is an ultimate creator, then perhaps this is how he intended it to be.
"and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him" - 1 John 3:2
