“The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God–with science winning, or at least chipping away at faith’s underlying verities.” -- David Van Biema, Time Magazine 2006, quoted here.
1. The scientist, in order to do science, and, indeed, in order to believe that science is even doable, must rely on fundamental assumptions about reality. These include, e.g., the existence of immutable, immaterial laws of logic, the existence of immutable, immaterial laws of mathematics, the existence of a regulated, law-based universe, and ourselves improbably endowed with the ability to self-consciously contemplate and explore it.
A universe whose most reasonable and only satisfactory and sufficient explanation is an intentional, purposeful Creator-God who is himself rational, moral, and purposeful.
2. Science cannot address "why?". It cannot satisfactorily address human aspirations such as the longing for meaning, significance, purpose, authentic love, immortality, or an intrinsic moral sense and thirst for justice -- in other words, all that really counts as the essence of being human. Darwinian attempts are pitifully deficient.
John Lennox does a good job addressing the "caged death match" in his book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
Properly understood, there is no death match between science and religion -- just a war in the hearts of the unbelieving tragically played out in public view.
There is a God. He has done something about our estranged condition. It's our move.