Science does ask some serious questions of traditional religious beliefs such as the Bibles creation account, the flood etc. But it certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist. That in itself does not prevent a scientist from voicing that belief and presenting the science that led him to that conclusion. Such a conclusion is still an opinion or contention, when taken to that level of implication, and can still be disagreed with for lack of scientific proof and nothing else. But scientist are allowed to have opinions too . . . and it's not entirely their responsibility to intrepret it on our behalf. We can take or leave what lies beyond the facts. Perhaps that's where science and religion differ a little fundamentally.
Leading edge science will always have more contention surrounding it, as traditionally held beliefs are challenged. But again it's the challenge or demand for validation, that is the mechanism by which evidence is produced. Most of the scientific community recognises this, and engages in, and invites criticism. No scientist expects to publish findings and be immediately hailed some sort of hero. He normally expects and invites critique . . . in order for his work to undergo validation. If something is presented which flies in the face of current understanding and is light on evidence, it will be labelled "whacky", because in that context it probably is . . . but this does not mean it won't survive the validation process.
It seems it's hard for some to get their head around the fact that criticism, contention and disagreement doesn't lessen the value of accepted science . . . it enhances it. The same should be true of religion if it's founded in fact.