I would say that they are both true science and religion. But science asks for its mistakes to be corrected , whereas religion is the ultra conservative view that existing prejudice and received folly, is perfect truth, requiring no improvement nor any need to be checked against any measure of verification. Indeed if it were not so then it would never have been needful to create philosophy, which checked and qualified itself by asking for that it should at least comply with reason, as and alternative.

And when that did not prove to be enough, it was needful to invent the sub-division of philosophy, science, ( once called natural philosophy ), which asked for the further check of experimental evidence, to guard against prejudice and inherited folly.

Many harmful things have been created and done by science, such as lobotomies, but guess who found out that lobotomies were not a good idea. That would be science, in fact you only know that lobotomies are harmful because science told you so. And if it were not for science, then doctors would still be bleeding people to death, and you would still be asked to provide wood for burning witches, as proof of you piety.

Science evolves. Evolution makes mistakes and corrects them.

Religion never corrects it's errors.

It's not science that's messed up, or even religion, as much as I'm an atheist. It's the evil bastards that call themselves human beings.

Religion... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27

What religion are you talking about?

There is an essential difference between science and religion. In the above cases, and others like them, shameful as they were, science has not been ashamed to say that scientists got it wrong.

Science corrects itself. And science does not pretend that it comes from some infallible source which holds eternal, all-knowing truth. Science is a process of learning. We will never know all there is to know, but as we keep learning, we do know more and more.

Religion, on the other hand, claims to know everything already, thus sees no need to investigate and learn; partly because of the danger that what we learn will contradict what religion already "knows". And how can you know more than the infallible source?

Religious people talk about the "arrogance" of science. In my view, it's far more arrogant to claim that one already knows everything worth knowing, because of books written 6000 years ago. Science is essentially humble and in awe of the universe. I consider that a superior moral condition.