Yes, exactly. That’s why the OP’s remarks are invalid: he’s suggesting that science fails because it doesn’t operate like religion. I’m saying they are two different things.
Science and the scientific method operate under very strict rules. This is, of course a necessary construct in order to advance the understanding of virtually everything.
The scientific method is bound to “materialism, reductionism etc”, it is bound to what can be observed, tested and repeated”. The interpretations of those discoveries have implications and should fit within the construct of the whole of a particular theory. When the interpretations upset the whole or current narrative of the theory, something needs to give.
Creationists point out the inconsistencies and repeated re-interpretations as a failure of the theory. And evolutionists will tell you that this is how science works.
Objectively, there’s something wrong.
New evidence should support the theory, not make it more complicated. So much more complicated that they are willing to invoke the “super-natural” or “meta-physics” in order to resolve or save the theory.