An excellent question which my simple mind had never considered. I think a deeper probe, i.e., more thought, would be helpful in the theological/secular debate.
It's true, this is a tricky question, and from my perspective, the answer is subtle. Science is built on this very strict platform of experiment. This means that arguments can always be settled. In pure science, you can never end up at a "difference of opinion". Because if anything relies on opinion, then it is not scientific. Since explanations often hinge on opinion, it is true that pure science concerns itself merely with describing phenomena.
This strictness gives science its power. It also gives it some pretty significant limits. There is no way to test whether an earthquake was caused by shifting tectonic plates or by some ancient god writhing beneath the earth in a way that appears to us as shifting tectonic plates. Science can't ever decide between these two. But in order to explain science to other people, particularly people who aren't used to accepting this kind of limitation, scientists are often forced to do some explanation. These explanations are often colored by their personal bias and subject to all kinds of assumptions and interpretations. In my opinion, one of the things that modern scientists are worst at is making clear when they are stating a scientific observation and when they are stating a non-scientific opinion of how that observation came to be.