I think it's a misleading comparison, because religion and science use fundamentally different paradigms for attaining knowledge.
For example, in most religions, scriptural authority or the pronouncements of a revered teacher are considered valid bases for knowledge. So is direct personal testimony (I saw an angel, had this strange meditation experience, felt I was walking through walls, etc).
Science accepts none of the above and relies on observation and measurement, with certain rules laid out as to what constitutes a valid test.
As Ñāṇa pointed out somewhere in this thread, the Pali Canon sets out various bases for knowledge: 1) scriptural authority and the authority of noble persons, 2) inference from accepted premises, 3) direct perception (for instance, by a meditator who develops special powers or insight). Notably, these three bases do not appear to include what we would call the scientific method.
Maybe this is why we never get anywhere in these discussions. The "great rebirth debate" thread is essentially an arena for conflicting epistemologies.