Enough to objectively conclude that science is more coherent than religion? For describing details of the physical world, the bible is useless. For describing people's morality, physics is useless. I would not use my physics textbook to tell me how to behave, and I wouldn't use my bible to tell me about ressesive genes and stratigraphic sequences. Each book has it's place.
It's fine to praise the bible, but it has it's limits of usefulness.
The ToE is not entirely about details either. It is a general picture developed through general assumptions. When it gets down to details there are probably as many ideas about how evolution has taken place as there are books about it. The only general agreement among evolutionists is that evolution happens. They have no guiding documents. They have no means of empirically testing whether their theory is more in accord with objective reality than a different theory. They have only a physical world and their own presuppositions.
If it is only "details" that make for "coherence" then I will have to agree wit you that science offers more detail about the physical world. It is able to do so because the world is intelligently designed and thus intelligible.