I think that the main confusion among non scientists about science is that they think of it as a set of beliefs that scientist try to establish and then prove, when in reality, the focus of science is actually on disproof.
Non scientists constantly confuse the mainstream use of 'theory' (meaning any wild-ass idea with or without supporting evidence) with a scientific theory, which is an explanation for some observation or set of observations of the natural world that has been well-tested and found to have voluminous supporting data and no data that disprove it. The bolded info is really crucial. (I think scientists themselves contribute to this confusion sometimes...e.g., String Theory in physics, unless there have been recent developments that I'm unaware of, is actually a set of hypotheses that in no way reach the level of theory because most of them aren't testable for disproof at this time).
The scientific method works both through accumulation of evidence for hypotheses, and more importantly by disproving incorrect hypotheses. Thus, no matter how well supported, all scientific theories/hypotheses remain technically provisional and theoretically subject to revision. The scientific method doesn't 'prove things to be absolutely true' though it can prove things untrue. However, in practice, certain ideas are so well supported that they exist as 'facts' (at least in our known universe/dimension/set of natural laws).
The main difference between religion and science is that religion does not allow for disproof because it doesn't allow established rules for reality, against which its claims might be tested. It's Sagan's dragon-in-the-garage analogy:
Believer: I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage.
Scientist: Great, lets have a look.
B: It's invisible.
S: Ok, no problem, we'll put down some powder and get some footprints.
B: It's incorporeal.
S: Ok, how about we test for the heat signature of its fire?
B: It has heatless fire.
And on and on and on. Essentially, no concrete evidence for the dragon (only subjective individual testimony), but no allowable way to disprove the existence of the dragon.
A more simple and commonly heard example would be the phrase: "God always answers your prayers, but sometimes he says 'no'." How would that outcome ever differ from one in which you prayed to a god that doesn't exist? Sometimes things go your way, and sometimes they don't, even when there is no god.
When faced with such bullshit, a scientist eventually says, "Ok, it is still hypothetically POSSIBLE this dragon exists and we just haven't figured out a way to disprove it, and we haven't established any objective evidence that it exists. But if so, then practically speaking, what is the difference between this dragon existing, and no dragon existing at all?" None, except believing in the dragon might affect the believer's behavior or emotional state (which as I've noted in an earlier post, can have very notable behavioral and societal consequences).
I would call myself a scientific atheist, in that there is no evidence for god(s) and no sufficient way to disprove their existence. Although I remain hypothetically open to the possibility that eventually evidence/tests will be discovered, I am not holding my breath and I'm certainly not going to structure my life and decision-making around such a remote possibility. I provisionally assume that gods don't exist or, if they do, then they have no practical consequence and thus might as well not exist at all.