Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".
I think the point of the article isn't that atheism is unscientific; confident, undoubted atheism is unscientific. absolutely certain atheism is unscientific.
atheism is not a fact, it is a belief. The assumption that there is no god is quite similar to the assumption that there is one.
"possibilianism" would cover leprechauns equally as well as god. It would cover santa right along with god. Unicorns as well, the flying spaghetti monster, etc. It is beyond useless.
EDIT: Author also thinks "faith" should be taught in public schools. http://biologos.org/blog/science-religion-can-coexist-in-sch...
So a careful scientists concludes merely that he has no basis for an opinion about the existence of God.
P.S. I believe in God because the neutrino helicity problem is a miracle. :-)
To clarify a bit further, see quote: "You can't prove that God exists!" they accuse (correctly). Yet, hypocritically, strict atheists are guilty of the exact same crime: belief without evidence. This is nonsense. It is not belief without evidence, it is disbelief due to the lack of evidence. An embarrassingly basic strawman argument.