Science can survive only if it acknowledges that it can’t clarify what reality is or how it has originated, ie, can’t replace religion, but can only handle worldly matters, such as how things works. If it does not acknowledge this fact, then it is bound to disappear between all religions, because it can’t deliver what it promises.
The reason that science can only handle worldly matters is that it can only arrive to conclusions by comparing theories with reality, and can thus only consider theories about how reality works, not about what it is. Science can’t, for example, test competing theories about whether reality is analogous to a candy bag or to a candy. Nor can it find kinds of things, like Higgs particles or the kind of all kinds (ie, the true tree of life). It can just compare theories about cause and effect, like if a certain behavior increases the risk of catching a certain disease. This it does by simply mapping the correlation between process and pattern, like between behavior and the disease.
Calling efforts to disclose what things, like reality, “really” are, science, is actually destructive for science, because science can’t deliver answers to such questions. Science simply can’t replace religion. Unfortunately, it means that “historical science”, like phylogenetics, has to compete on a subjective basis with religion, ie, appeal for faith in it, a destiny also shared with physics on its most fundamental level (eg, string theorists, multiple unversiatists and particle physicists).
Instead, exercises such as these should be attributed to rationalism, which can claim to be able to explain what things “really” are. But, there has to be drawn a clear aisle between rationalism and science, because rationalism isn’t any more scientific than all religions are, but just excludes God(s), which science itself doesn’t. An explanation that a certain God makes people that have been infected with small-pox virus sick is not unscientific, but just redundant. Science itself has nothing to say about God(s), but is just a method to handle worldly matters.
So, if science wants to avoid being eradicated between religions, then it has to acknowledge the fact that it can’t compete with religions, but can only answer worldly questions. It means that it has to draw an aisle between it and rationalism, ie, its own extremists. Otherwise, it will be drawn into a war it can’t win (as rationalism). In this matter it thus has to clear in its own ranks.
In order to survive, science thus has to divorce itself from rationalism and instead return to its humble basis of being able to solve worldly problems.