As far as religion goes, there seems to be a huge confusion both among scientists and those in the religious community that do not like what scientists say. The scientists themselves are partly to blame because they are hostile in return.
Science can only ever explain the “how”. Religion is there to explain the “why”. Sure, you might explain “why” planets rotate as they do and “why” life on earth is currently at its present state of evolution. But that isn’t really the answer to “why”. Just an answer to “how” it got that way. “How” the machine works, not why there is a machine in the first place.
Religious literalists cannot stand that which contradicts whatever intepretation they have chosen as their permanent programming. That results in conflicts like the creationist/evolution issue.
The Pope and many other religious leaders see no conflict between science and religion. because they understand the difference between the how and the why.
Science fiction often steps into the realm of the why and therefore requires religion.
And often enough, the explanation eventually proves to be wrong, so science posits a different one. That's one of the enjoyable elements of older science fiction, 1920s-40s: writers worked either within the parameters of the best scientific knowledge/theories of the time, or they attempted to make massive leaps beyond what was known or reasonably theorized. Either type of speculation can produce interesting scientific possibilities and interesting plots.