I could agree with that. It’s the blurring of lines between them that generates controversy. When one introduces “why” instead of “how,” ie, conscious motivation, into science, it becomes religion. Better each stay in its own bailiwick.
The “blurring of lines” is when you misuse either one. Science relies on skepticism. Religion on faith. When you have one using the tools of the other, you have the global warming fanatics and the flat earth fanatics.