I’ve long been a fan of Eugenie Scott. She’s done some excellent work supporting the teaching of evolution and pushing back against the Republican/Christian Right’s attempts to get creationism and intelligent design taught in schools.

While science can’t disprove the supernatural (by definition, since science is the study of the natural) it can and has disproved certain religious claims such as those by creationists. When religions make testable claims about the world/universe, science can be used to investigate those claims and determine their validity. Finding some religious claims to be invalid doesn’t mean that no god exists, just that specific claims about the actions/mechanisms used by god are inaccurate.

What science has done is determine that when investigating the world/universe, supernatural explanations are not necessary. So in a way science is an atheistic enterprise; it assumes that there is a natural explanation for phenomena under study.

But science can’t determine if a god exists or not. Perhaps if there was an agreed upon definition of god and it’s attributes then science could investigate the question, but since no such agreed upon definition exists science can’t be used to investigate the question. Those who claim that since science has always found a naturalistic explanation for phenomena that no supernatural exists are simply wrong.