More information here.
A thought…
Science is defining the universe by what we can observe. Faith is defining the universe by what we can’t observe.
Science can only take us so far, everything else (deity or not) is a matter of belief. Some name it faith, others name it philosophy.
Science is not incompatible with people of faith. Nor is faith incompatible with science. Everyone believes something without scienctific method or discovery.
It is how you interpret the data that makes the difference.
Daniel Silas
Hold the Line 
If the data is open to any interpretation then anything goes. In science this is not the case but in religion anything does go. Hence a large number of religions and within those a huge number of sects. In a sense religion is far easier to deal with since you can pick your favourite interpretation.
Science is a much more prickly, as a body of information it advances and alongside produces technology. As I tap this message I’m saying yes to the science of communication.
I understand your point, but I think you are in error.
How can multiple judges (The Supreme Court as an example) look at the same data and the law, then come up with two opposing opinions?
How can multiple medical doctors look at the same patient symptoms and come up with different diagnosis?
It is the same in scientific circles. How can multiple scientists look at the same data and come up with opposing opinions? Climate change is one example.
You’ve made the point about differing religions.
Data is open to interpretation as a necessity. Human beings make errors and mistakes, and often times their opinions are wrong. That is one reason why it is good to get multiple opinions.
History shows us that even the majority of people who are looking at the same data can be wrong.
So on any given issue there has to be a right answer and a wrong answer among all the opinions. Of course you have philosophical topics that are in a gray area.
Areas of science that rely on statistics need time to accumulate data. Few now would dispute smoking causes lung cancer for the statistical evidence is overwhelming. Climate change comes in that category but data is accumulating. We have to choose, as we do in most things but sensible people weigh up the pros and cons and make their choice.