Science is incomplete?

Recently I read article of a religious authority who was asserting the superiority of religions by proving that science is incomplete. I think concept of notions are not clear to many,and it leads towards total ambiguity.

Who said Science is, or is supposed to be complete?

Who said it will ever be?

Let's be clear, and not fall into the trap of wasted time and effort because of the lack of vocabulary and repertoire. Climb onto the shoulders of those before you and stand taller then they did. To wit:
Knowledge is the result of Scientific Process. Only. There may be other means to acquire insight on the world, but they are not knowledge. Knowledge is the final result of acquired and processed data which is sifted and rearranged, interpreted, tested, re-tested and then reviewed.

Science deals with FACT. Not Truth, nor truth (mind the caps, they DO make a difference here). Truth is the pursuit of Philosophy, and truth the pursuit of Logic. Knowledge is about FACTS, not Truth, nor truth, nor anything else. Other forms of knowing and interpreting reality exist, but Knowledge is the exclusive result of the dialect behind the scientific process. Wisdom may result off Philosophy or Religious Thought, etc etc. Different realms. Subtle? Yes. Impossible to differentiate? NO.

Knowledge is itself unlimited, because morsels of it may be combined to form yet newer knowledge. Since the total keeps being accrued, its span is not limited, thus infinite.

Cognitive capability is limited, at least in individuals. Our expanded memory (writing) is at best a depository of symbols, which MAY convey their meaning, provided they are read by the right people with the right training. Seldom done, sadly.

Science is not Morals. It might be Ethical (we can hope), but it does not impinge behaviors onto others. Science is not a religion. Science is not an ideology. Science is not your parents, science is not a shaman, peer, friend, society, nor is it barney-the-purple dinosaur. Science is not chewing gum and it is definitely not nutritious, diet, "light", low-cal, etc.

Science is a method of asserting facts, producing knowledge from data. Period. Anything else, including expectations on Science, are mere rants from the uneducated. It is not some end-it-all panacea for all that ails us. It does not even aim at badgering us like Religion or Philosophy about how we live. It simply puts tools - facts that MAY guide our decisions - at our disposition.To append loaded meanings or purposes to science is to play a veritable fool, and to confess lacking in understanding of what one talks about. Very common, by the way.

Remember, science deals in and delivers FACTS, not axioms, not wise dicta, not admonitions, not premonitions, not prophecies, not injunctions, etc.

Science is definitely NOT Philosophy, nor Religion, nor Abstract Thought, nor Common Sense (least common of them all). To attempt to mix Science with Philosophy is to guarantee a mess-up of the results, or simply to acquiesce to silly concoctions of... nothing. Hot air, really.
Thats the reason there can NEVER be a connection between science and religion. Terms like 'scientific philosophy' or 'scientific religion' mean absolutely nothing. Science is not meant to tell you how to do squat in relation to your parents or sexual partners. It might suggest safe, healthy practices, and even point out that filial piety pays at the end, but it is not meant to lecture anyone.

So, yes, Science IS always incomplete. Always will be, because it does not have a limit drawn, nor can we foresee it. Thankfully, because otherwise the number of theses for PhD dissertations would be limited, thus grad students would despair (already do), and no new scientists would be produced.:-)