Michael Griffiths wrote:
The only real diffrence between science and religion - that I can see - is that science attempts to explains how things happen, and religion attempts to explain why they happen.

Relgion tries to cross over to "how" a far bit, however. Religion also has a fairly weak argument, because all the "whys" end up being "Because God wills it so."

Still, science never attempts to explain why. Gravity exists: we can measure it, predict what it will do, and explain what has happened, we know how it varies/etc... but not why. (Unless more advanced science than I know can explain it).



To me, "science vs. religion" is one of the most divisive false dichotomies out there.  I think it's a bad idea for those with sincerely-held religious beliefs to make science their enemy.  If truth is the goal, then science should be held in high regard, at least for what it is--a method, not a static body of knowledge. 

On the other hand, many in the scientific community are similarly guilty of making religion their enemy.  As you mention, science attempts to explain the how, not the why.  The problem here is often that "science" will "say" that it cannot prove whether or not God exists--that it is an inherently un-scientific pursuit--but then will go on to say that "there is no evidence for the existence of God."  If science is recusing itself from the pursuit of evidence for the existence of God, then it has no grounds on which to state that there is "no evidence."