Are God and Science diametrically opposed? I believe the answer to this question lies within another - “Does the belief or the non-belief in God prohibit science in any way?” Clearly, the answer should be “no”. One person believes that God was a first cause, who brought the universe into being, the other believes that the universe is a product of random processes. The argument is not really God vs Science, the argument is, as it always has been, Creation vs Naturalism.
Allow me to briefly explain why the argument is not God vs. Science. The definition of science could be watered down to a process of asking questions, finding and testing the results of the original question you asked. It is inquiry. By its nature, there is no way to disprove God through inquiry. Neither a microscope, nor a telescope, by its nature, has the capacity to disprove God. The ludicrous ideology that science has disproved the existence God is the fair equivalent that the Model T disproved the existence of Henry Ford.
"Who said the universe needed a creator?" you might ask. Consider that the very implications of something being "created" binds the object to a point in time. A created object has a beginning. Because it has a beginning, it is now a participant in history- it is subject to time. But God is not like something that was created, because God was not created. He had neither a beginning nor end. He was, He is, and He always will be. That’s a harsh principal for a finite being to wrap its mind around. The question "who created God?" is guilty of the fundamental error that God was created.
Creation is stapled to a timeline - a timeline in which God does is not subjected to. Because we know that the universe was created, we choose between two popular options: The first being, that universe was spontaneously thrust into existence by random, natural processes. The second being, that an intelligent creator created it. Now the fatal flaw with the first popular option, that the universe was spontaneously generated, lies within the very idea that “something material was, before nothing material was” - in other words, “something material came from nothing”. Obviously illogical. Material objects do not come from nothing. This is where the second option makes sense. A non-material creator, who is exists out of time, must be the explanation. This is why the universe needs a creator.
A belief or disbelief in God does nothing to hinder people from doing science. Regardless of belief, the door of science is open to all who dare to ask questions about the universe that we live in. Faith should never be a threat to advancement. Science has done nothing to disprove God. On the contrary, it has continued to prove Him over and over again. From the complexity of DNA, to the mystery of consciousness - God has revealed His creativity and beauty throughout the universe, and left the imprint of His image on the people who explore it.
"Men became scientific because they expected to find law in nature. They expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." -CS Lewis