This doesn't seem to be a very coherent discussion, and it seems almost to shy away from the "compare and contrast" purpose hinted at in the thread title. Perhaps that's because despite superficial similarities, science and religion are such fundamentally different concepts. Just in case anyone feels like debating that, here are some comments to take shots at. Note that these are just observation, hypothesis and opinion:
Religion predates science, and one can argue that, to some degree, it likely arose due to the absence of science, in that what became religious beliefs probably started as a result of human curiosity and introspection; an attempt to explain the unknown, which, back then, was nearly everything. Without any kind of formalized framework, man invented increasingly complex, arbitrary and untestable explanations for the universe and its workings. Hence the proliferation of deities: sun gods, moon gods, earth gods, tree gods etc. - in fact pretty much anything that could be worshipped as a deity seemed to be, somewhere, at some time. All religions are simple belief systems.
At some point, quite early it would seem, the usefulness of religions as control mechanisms became apparent, at which point they moved beyond being just explanations and started to set rules of behavior - often appropriate and beneficial rules for society, but not necessarily so. One can subdue by force, or one can subdue by threat of supernatural retribution and/or eternal damnation. Or one can usefully employ a combination of the two. The latter has the benefit that even if the subjects have a catastrophically miserable existence on earth, it can be trumped by the threat of eternity. And it's cheaper. All it requires is widespread indoctrination from a young age and the lack of, or suppression of, a competing mindset. It has been, throughout history, spectacularly successful and, even today, still works admirably in some parts of the world - as evidenced by the level of control voluntarily accepted in many Islamic societies.
Science, or more specifically, the scientific method, is not a control system. In fact it cannot be, by definition. It is not even very mysterious - just the rigorous application of logic to the process of observation, hypothesizing and testing. The results are what they are, and while, just like any other observation or statement of fact they can, in turn, be used to justify actions, those actions are not part of the process.
With the rise of scientific investigation, religions faced a challenge and some associated choices: (1) outlaw its practice, (2) deny its legitimacy, or (3) evolve to try to accomodate it. All three choices have been tried with varying success, although those religions that most obviously breached mainstream modern understanding of the most simple aspects of the universe (sun worshippers et al.) largely did not survive. In other cases, (1) and (2) have worked to some extent, especially when used together, and represent, for example, the default approach of many fundamentalist Islamic regimes, even though they clearly embrace science when it suits them - for example for the purposes of building advanced weapons. (1) and (2) are, however, very damaging to economic development, because ignorance is their friend and, if used consistently, they inherently suppress technological advancement.
Which leaves (3), the evolution of religion to accomodate the advances in understanding brought about by science. As has been noted many times, this effectively leaves religions in the position either of retreating to the remaining unknowns and declaring them to be the realm of their deity or of accepting that the modern explanations derived by scientific study are correct, but asserting that their deity created them that way. Both these positions have the advantage of being untestable, and they are relatively harmless - provided that they are flexible enough to continue to evolve as our knowledge expands. The danger comes when those who hold such beliefs start to push back against scientifically derived knowledge - regression to (2), if not all the way to (1).
That takes us back, if I am not mistaken, to one of the triggers of this discussion - the question of how to keep those religious beliefs that have been overtaken by modern advances in understanding out the policy-making process while not denying that personal values, including some derived from religious beliefs, will inevitably play a part in shaping proposed legislation.