I'd like to point out something that seems to get easily lost in this context:
Before one asks "Does science reject the concept of god" one should first consider the related (and much more important, in my opinion) question: "Does science reject the concept of a god who interferes in his creation?"
The god of deism (that means a "watchmaker"-god who created the universe and set it in motion but after that keeps his hands off it) might be compatible with science, but a god who answers prayers, performs miracles, sends visions and so on? Hardly.
If you disagree, consider the following thought experiment:
You are a scientifically thinking person who happens to be in Jerusalem around the year 30 A.D. Someone comes running to you and shouts "Hey, remember that Jesus guy who was crucified three days ago? He just came back from the dead!"
What do you do? Fall on your knees and pray? Or do you point out: "Unless I receive compelling evidence to the contrary, to me it seems rather more likely that it was only apparent death, or that his death was faked."
With that in mind, the gap between theism (in this case, christianity) and deism seems much wider and much more noteworthy than the one between deism and atheism. (And agnosticism, for that matter.)
Probably that's because organised christianity, like most or even all religions I guess, is almost impossible to separate from the belief that its religious rituals (including prayer) have actual power and its religious taboos are actually dangerous.
(If you are not sure what I mean by "religious taboos", try to remember if you felt uneasy reading the expression "that Jesus guy" a few lines earlier. Not because I was being impolite to christian readers, but because god might actually punish me for dissing his son.)
An interesting aside here is that I have the impression that although deism and agnosticism should in theory reject the idea of religious rituals and taboos having actual power, they do not like to emphasize that. I'm getting a bit into speculation here of course, but it seems to me that often only atheism is seen as actively taking a stand against organised religion, whereas deists and agnostics are perceived as saying "please, we don't want to cause any trouble, just leave us alone" - i.e. they are just fence sitters to unimportant to bother with.
To get back to the original question, you ask whether agnosticism might be a more scientific approach than atheism. While I guess technically I agree, I suspect that agnosticism is misunderstood by too many people to mean something like "there's a fifty-fifty chance that god exists". It's important to remember that miracles, answered prayers and religious rituals are not just from the atheistic, also from the agnostic point of view not much more than superstition. That may seem a bit unrelated to the actual question, but I suspect it's the elephant in the room.
EDITED to reply to the following comment by gerdi: "The OP was actually more to do with scientific method in the viewpoint of atheism as taken by some very outspoken scientists. Not deism. I want to understand what science is used in their ideology, to get to the point where they push their ideas like that of their zealous religist opponents."
Fair point. But you seem to imply that if atheists like Dawkins are militant, agnostics are not. In the sense that atheists insist that god does not exist, while agnostics do not insist, that may seem a fitting description.
What I wanted to point out is the following: Aside from the question if god exists, I'm pretty sure those atheists also "militantly" criticise the belief in miracles and similar interfering actions of a theistic god. And I think in that "battlefield" a scientifically motivated agnostic would have no choice but to take a stand against religion, too.
If I understand Neil Meyer's answer correctly, he claims that there are lots of scientists who are also happily religious. That's probably true in so far that those persons either avoid to confront the problem, or mean something rather different with "religious" than most people (i.e. deism). I cannot see how one can take the scientific method seriously and still accept a theistic concept of god. So a confrontation here is pretty much unavoidable (unless you choose to avoid the topic to stay out of trouble).
And if you have become militant in that arena, you might chose to go all the way and call yourself an atheist, to avoid misunderstandings and to send a message that you are not afraid of controversy.
That's at least why I would call myself an atheist rather an agnostic.