No, science doesn't explain everything

The Age's article Beyond Belief, an overview of "new atheism" and atheism in general, is generating comment over a few points that don't ring true with actual atheists. (See Michael Bachelard's story on the New Atheism - a response by Russell Blackford.) 

My instant beef with the article was one small claim. This:

The new atheism is bigger, more organised, and much more assertive than ever before. It's based on the belief that science explains everything we need to know about the world so there's no need for religion. 

Bollocks. No one sane claims that "science explains everything"; we all know there are things that remain very unexplained, and even the most ardent admirer of science (with its incredible record of explaining so much) must admit that some mysteries might always remain outside our grasp. 

Atheism is not based on the belief that science explains everything. Rather, it's based on the demonstrable fact that religion and faith explain nothing.

Oh, and one more small beef, though it's a common flaw not at all confined to the Beyond Belief article. The discussion is the usual one about atheism vs belief in God. As in, singular God. That false dichotomy is so common we usually let it pass, but we shouldn't.

There are still believers in whole pantheons of gods; we have no business handing Abrahamic monotheists the standard as the sole representatives of religion. Any monotheists expecting to automatically advance to the final debate with belief in no gods need to first settle their dispute with belief in three gods and four gods and a hundred gods and so on. We, in turn, should force those warring parties to slug it out every time.