I see your point - and I think our disagreement arises with the breadth of our brushstrokes. There are those who believe (which I sense you do) that science is a methodology. I understand science as a mode of thinking about the world, of which the methodology is an important and necessary aspect. In my mind, that's the only fair way of thinking about the issue as it pertains to the NOMA argument - since religion is not a methodology, but a way of interpreting the world. Hence, on even footing, science must win in the "world perception" category, since it has the huge benefit of being internally and externally consistent. That's my only case.