I am an atheist and a scientist. No, science cannot explain consciousness, it can only describe it. That is fundamentally different. That doe snot invalidate science and it does not create a need for religion. For example, fire could not be explained by science for a long, long time. That caused it to be the subject of more primitive religions. Today it can be explained down to the details (although some things are still unclear in the properties of flames...) I do not mean to say by this that science will eventually be able to explain consciousness, but that there is no need for it to be able to do so.
Dualism is a perfectly fine, religion-free idea to describe a possible source of both consciousness and intelligence (which also cannot be explained at this time), and a nice model that explains why science has trouble at this point. It even allows things like an eternal soul without requiring religion. This just shows that religions with that concept blatantly stole it.
Many atheists initially mis-identify dualism as religion, but it is not. It is a model, not an absolute truth you have to accept. A model can be wrong. It serves only to provide a possible explanation, serving to rule out that there _must_ be a different one (i.e. those provided by religions). As such, dualism merely points out that there is no need for religion in order to explain certain things that science cannot explain at this time. And when you add that religion itself can be very well explained by science, you start to get a complete picture.