If you read the results of the evidence that is examined by men of science, you quickly see by the language used, that it is mostly based on assumptions and speculations and then suggestions as to why the evidence points in that direction. It is always interpreted according to the theory, not the other way around. So if you have scientists who are Bible believers, then the evidence will point in the direction of Intelligent Design.
When pressed to provide the proof of their findings, you are soon informed that science has no "proof", just "evidence"....so if the evidence requires no proof, then it must require faith. Those are the only two options.
Its the same with the Bible...interpretation is everything. All have the same book, but all put their own slant on things assuming that the doctrines adopted by the church in the early centuries were taught by Christ. Most of them were never taught by Jesus or the apostles in the first place, and were never among the teachings given to the Jews in their scripture. Since all of the first Christians were Jewish, and the only scripture they had was the OT, it stands to reason that when doctrines were introduced into the church in those early centuries, (i.e. the trinity, immortality of the soul and a hell of fiery torment, among others introduced by the RCC) they must of necessity have come from outside of God's word, inferred in ambiguous verses.
All can be traced back to ancient Babylon in fact.