I get your point @LostInParadise. And that is indeed one of the main perceived differences in Science and Religion. Science typically rewards those who find flaws with the current establishment. At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work. That is the face value.
Religion typically ostracizes those who change the faith… i.e. Martin Luther.
However, Science is not without its own dogmas and threatened establishments. It is not uncommon for the recognized establishment to persecute the new discoveries and theories. I specifically speak of Barbara McClintock. Her discoveries in the 50’s noted that genes were controlled agents, and non random at all. This flew in the face of every Scientist which had built their careers upon the premise of random mutations. When your department is seeking funding and grants for next years budget, and life long reputations are at stake, it’s not so easy to allow new discoveries to topple your kingdom. McClintock was demonized for two decades for her discoveries. Being a woman didn’t help the matter either. She was forced underground with her work. But ultimately, the establishment could not deny what she had been promoting all along, and she was awarded the Nobel Prize.
In her words:
“Over the years I have found that it is difficult if not impossible to bring to consciousness of another person the nature of his tacit assumptions when, by some special experiences, I have been made aware of them. This became painfully evident to me in my attempts during the 1950s to convince geneticists that the action of genes had to be and was controlled. It is now equally painful to recognize the fixity of assumptions that many persons hold on the nature of controlling elements in maize and the manners of their operation. One must await the right time for conceptual change.”
Science is not without its dogmatic establishments and persecuted thinkers.
In the case of religion, although it is supposedly founded upon perceived and unwavering absolute truths, dogma is also a force to reckon with. Fortunately, Theology picks up where dogmatic Religion leaves off. Like Science, it is the duty and purpose of Theology to constantly question the ancient writ, to pull the meaning out one accurately translated word at a time. To put it in context with the cultural issues of the ancient day, and debate what relevance it has to modernity. Religion can and often does get out of hand, as you say, relying upon an ignorant faith to guide its followers. But it is not without its critical thinkers from Theology, and perhaps even more so from those pursuing the Philosophies, who’s job it is to see how it relates to the very Science which would otherwise reject it.