Explain why atheism cannot incorporate the results of science into it's beliefs? And I am pretty sure they are heavily related as not believing in a god means the universe had to be created in another way, and that can't really fall under any other category other then science.
There are a lot of things wrong with this paragraph.
First off, there's no strict set of beliefs called "atheism"; this has been made obvious in the thread already. Atheism can't incorporate anything into "its beliefs" because it is not a set of beliefs; it is, in itself, simply a lack of (or outright rejection of, depending) one particular belief: The belief in anything one would call a "god".
Also, there are PLENTY of modes of thought that are neither scientific nor theistic. For one thing, there is such a thing as nontheistic religion. They're relatively rare compared to the theistic philosophy in terms of major religions you would have heard of, but they exist; Buddhism, for one, is not explicitly theistic, but definitely comprises some religious and supernatural teachings/philosophy. On top of that, you an be neither scientific nor
religious. Not examining the world around you in a scientific manner doesn't make you religious (necessarily), and being irreligious doesn't mean you're very scientific about how you do things, either.
So yeah, you can certainly have nonscientific views about the Universe that aren't "religious", per se. "Science" encompasses certain methodology and practices, it doesn't just mean "nonreligious thought" or "rational examination". This sort of thought actually used to be much more popular, that being the sort of "natural philosophy" that involves rationally discussing the natural world without religion necessarily entering the picture, but that does not involve quite the sort of rigor or methodology that any reasonable person would call "science".
As far as the universe being "created in another way", there are some schools of thought which render this moot, such as the universe always having been there.