I agree on the fact that the scientific method doesn't exist. I also agree on the fact that the concept of theory falsification (not to be confused with the concept of falsifiability) is too simplistic to explain how science progresses. On the other hand, the concept of falsifiability (i.e., if a statement can be demonstrated to be false either by experimentation or logic) is the only way to determine if an enunciation is within the province of science. Popper's demarcation of what constitutes science and what constitutes pseudo-science is the best demarcation that has ever been enunciated and it continues to be upheld by nearly everyone that has a proper knowledge of what science is. Popper's demarcation is based on the concept of falsifiability. According to this concept, God is OUTSIDE the province of science. This is not just my opinion. For example, see this "In its basic form, falsifiability is the belief that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory. For example, if a scientist asks, "Does God exist?" then this can never be science because it is a theory that cannot be disproved." Taken from https://explorable.com/falsifiability. Therefore, it is an incontestable truth that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. This is a very basic truth that all scientists ought to know. It is founded on the thoughts of some of the most brilliant philosophers in the history of mankind. Moreover, any honest scientist is able to attest that science cannot provide answers to metaphysical or moral questions. Science has simply nothing to do with morality, metaphysics, or even with ethics. That's why people like Richard Dawkins, Laurence Krauss, Sam Harris, Massimo Pigliucci and others are either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.