Related, this isn't a problem with science per se, but I find it problematic when people base philosophical beliefs on "scientific" concepts without appearing to appreciate that scientific thought is not without its own a priori philosophical presuppositions that are themselves not testable according to the scientific method. For example, people on this board say all the time that they are agnostic or don't believe in god because there is no scientific proof of god, yet they seem not to appreciate that that logic presupposes the view that everything that is must be capable of being apprehended by the senses. That view, however, is not a scientific one but a philosophical one. No experiment could ever prove that. Philosophy always has to precede science, and there are myriad other presuppositions that undergird science, like "there is an external world outside of myself," "my senses are capable of apprehending the external world," "my senses are capable of correctly apprehending the external world," "there is a logical structure to the external world," "we are capable of understanding this logical structure to the external world" etc etc etc. These are, perhaps, all fine presumptions to hold, but they are not unassailable, and, more importantly for my point, they can't be defended simply by looking at a test tube. They must be defended, if at all, on philosophical grounds only. That's where the debate should be, not on whether or not there is "proof" that god exists, because asking that question already assumes, by the way the way the question is framed, that s/he doesn't.
