First, we should define the scientific method. The scientific method is an inductive method that relies on observable, testable events. That being said, we have already found three limits on the scientific method:
1.) The scientific method cannot tell us about anything that is not observable.
2.) The scientific method cannot tell us anything about what is not testable.
3.) The scientific method cannot establish an absolute (100%) certainty about anything it touches, since it is an inductive method.
Now that we have seen these three things, we can list a number of other things, in addition to the 5 listed by Dr. Craig, that science cannot tell us.
1.) Science cannot tell us about historical truths. Historical truths are neither repeatable nor observable by us, and are therefore beyond the reach of the scientific method.
2.) Epistemological truths, or truths about how we come to know truth, must be assumed by the scientist before any experiments can be performed. Therefore, science cannot prove epistemological truths.
3.) Personal truths, such as whether or not I love someone, are beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot tell you whether I helped the old lady cross the street because I care about her or because I thought it would make me look better.
4.) Science can only tell us how things are. It cannot tell us how things OUGHT to be. To say otherwise is to commit the "is-ought" fallacy.
5.) Science cannot tell us about anything unfalsifiable.
6.) Science cannot tell us about anything logically incoherent. For example science cannot tell us what a married bachelor looks like, or how to toad an 11.
There are others that can be listed, but I think it is clear that the scientific method is limited in what it can tell us. Although it is useful, we must consider its limits whenever we try to understand something we believe was shown through the scientific method. For example, one atheist claimed that if we observe something, that we should automatically assume that it is true. However, that is a simplistic way of viewing things. Suppose we have the following:
1.) A deductive argument pointing to a conclusion "a".
2.) An observation pointing to a conclusion, "b", that contradicts "a".
What are we to do? What we SHOULD do is go back and check both. Was there a flaw in my deductive argument? Am I possibly missing something with this observation? We should weigh the evidence and draw a conclusion based on this. To say that we should believe everything we observe, and only what we can observe, without question is far too simplistic, and would naturally lead us to some absurd conclusions. We must keep in mind that, useful as the scientific method is for gaining knowledge, it is limited to what we can observe and test. It is not "omnipotent" or "unlimited".