The overlap is easy to spot. They are both faith based groups. Faith is believing something in lieu of evidence.
Which is part of the reason why the Q crowd doesn't always mesh well here. Evidence is usually requisite at this .win. "Trust" in a plan is hard to come by.
Not disputing this.
Correct(ish). This is a part of the scientific process I mentioned earlier. A hypothesis is not science but a possible explanation that requires further testing to prove and even once proven is only valid until potentially disproven by new evidence or knowledge unavailable at that time. A hypothesis alone is not proven science and I have never heard an actual scientist make a claim like that.
YES! And are you supposed to adjust your faith when faced with new data previously unavailable? Of course not right? Nor do I believe you should necessarily. I am not saying faith is a bad thing or that anything you say is incorrect and that I have any more knowledge than you about the divine. We are finite beings and cannot understand the infinite as a matter of fact, but of faith only. Which even the bible backs up I believe. (not a scholar myself) .
I am also not claiming that science is the ultimate truth or authority about anything and isn't without flaws itself. Most of science is theory anyhow. Gravity is only a theory. Science cannot explain it, but simple observation can prove its existence despite our incomplete understanding.
My issue is with a bad comparison. Not pro-science or anti-faith.