Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

You say that science isn't designed to find god, I disagree. Science is designed to discover the objective truth about our universe. If god exists science could discover her. I personally like the example of how god might leave his signiature somewhere in the digits of PI. Such a discovery would convince me of a 'creator' - if the signiature were to be an unambiguous confirmation of some property known to us already (like the periodic table)

Pardon me while I add Solipsism to the ever-expanding list of those things that are formally irrefutable but nonetheless worthy of ridicule. It is a sterile concept. I only said science could discover god. Granted she might be able to cover her tracks. I think I covered that: For it to be recognised as an intentional signiature it would have to be unambiguous. A coherent representation of familiar information could be made to stand out 'by a mile' by using a probabalistic approach.

crashfrog - If we redefine the universe as being all that you, the only extant being, can have access to then how would this make any difference to what can be known? This is why I call solipsism sterile. Its position at the most extreme end of subjectivity does not place it in a good position to be taken seriously either.

I am well aware of the use of solipsism as a device to drop arguments that embody assumptions about reality, but it can easily be escaped by using the right definitions: for example the term 'reality' must be defined in some manner, and properties of reality must not be assumed a priori.On this basis your 'point' would seem to contain a number of assumptions as well. If you wish to maintain a monopoly on reality, I'll settle for 'accurate models that explain what I observe'