As I understand the argument, it really boils down to two almost irreconcilable positions.

On the Scientific View: Science as it stands today, is incapable of proving or disproving the faith-based propositions due to the unavailability of suitable and adequate tools, techniques and measurement methodologies. Although science is a reflection of Man’s great intellect, intelligence, advancement and at times, wisdom, it has developed a profound arrogance.

Although scientists acknowledge (begrudgingly) that there are areas of Man’s beginning and existence for which they have no explanation, they refuse to acknowledge that answers exist and that the offered answers may be correct. They argue that since they cannot prove those answers in a laboratory situation, those answers are "incorrect". Their argument is logically incorrect as it commits the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: that the scientist’s proposition (that faith-based propositions are false) is true simply on the basis that the scientist’s proposition has not been proven false.

There must be and is an answer to Man’s beginning’s and his continuing existence. Answers do exist as proven by Man's very existence. The problem is that science has not evolved sufficiently to be able to demonstrate or prove those answers.

The limitation is of science and scientific method and not of the answers provided. Science, in due course, will either confirm or disconfirm the hypotheses upon which various answers have been provided to these nagging questions. It may be that all hypotheses provided to date will be disconfirmed. That will not mean that there is no answer – it will merely mean that the answer has not yet been found.

Furthermore, it is not a matter of categorising the ‘dispute’ as being between ‘science and faith’, as such a categorisation implies that faith is ‘unprovable’ scientifically. A more appropriate categorisation is between the ‘scientifically provable’ and ‘the as-yet scientifically unproven’.

On the Religious view: Religions emerged from their various contexts to suit Man’s needs at those times. They were formed in response to not only socio/environmental stimuli, but also Man’s need for an understanding of his environment. His ability to explain profound, largely natural, phenomena eluded him: his only recourse was to a supernatural being: a God that had all the answers, but was out of the reach of being known by Man and therefore could not be refuted.

Understandably, each religion claimed its “rightness” over all other beliefs and religions. Some interpretations within some religions even went so far as call for the death of all people who did not adopt their view of the world and of their God. This continues to this day.

Soon Man learned that the people who controlled access to their God gained enormous power over the people who followed that God. Some religions manipulated the supposed message and intent of their God in order to retain their power. They could do this because followers of that religion were too trusting, intimidated, had no better explanation, unable to question or were afraid to question or challenge.

Others felt that the greater the number of adherents to that brand of religion, the greater the power of the religion and therefore the greater the power of the people who controlled the gateways to it.

In each case, the religion was a product of Man, his limited understanding, and the context within which that religion was born.

If one reflects on the essence of religions, one finds kernels of truth which if adhered to, would enhance Man’s growth, harmony and wellness. Most religions prescribe sane and appropriate ways for Man to interact with his fellow Man. In the contexts in which those religions formed, those prescriptions may have served its adherents well. The intercession of Man to manipulate these prescriptions for his own ends, has not served Man well and in many cases has distorted the essence of goodness to be found in each religion.

In each religion there are Men of goodwill to their fellow Man, Nature and the environment, and there are people of ill-will or of self interest who do not serve Man’s best interest. It is not the religion that fails; it is the people within it who fail to heed the goodness of the religious context in whose name they speak.

In each religion there are aspects, interpretations and guidelines that serve its adherents well and those that do not. Each religion offers its own definition of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Some of these definitions of rightness and wrongness are shared across many or most religions and others are peculiar to a specific religion. Each in their context is given meaning by that context.

We are all of our own context – a context that may be defined by a religion or one defined outside of religion. If we all took our bearings only from our context’s definition of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, we might become confused by the conflicting interpretations of rightness and wrongness offered by different contexts.

In the Universe of Man there is no absolute ‘right’ and ‘wrong’: only that which serves him and that which does not - only that which enhances the growth of his essence and destiny and that which impedes it.

Despite all of this, religion is merely a context. The context is not ‘good’ or ‘bad, or ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – it just is. Our challenge is to make decisions from within our own contexts that will enhance our essence, our destiny and the world around us. The context gives our choice a character that enables it to dimension our essence. No more, no less.

Is science right? Not until it can convincingly confirm or disconfirm the claims of religion. As long as scientific method remains imperfect, its inability to confirm or disconfirm

Is religion right? Depends on which religion you are talking about and whether you believe in religion at all. Believing in a religious view does not make the view right. Not believing in religion or a particular view does not make that view wrong.