both science and theism are frameworks for understanding the world around us (respectively, its nature and meaning), each based on first principles. both have offered correct-sounding views, and both have been wrong before (remember the aether?).
the chief difference is science’s basis on observation. this does not mean that a scientific theory is never wrong. it simply means that scientific theory can be amended based on observation. textbooks can be rewritten to include natural selection, relativity, superstring theory, etc. in short, science is elastic due to its basis on observation. this is why it endures so famously.
theism, on the other hand, relies on set rules governing behavior and thought, all of which are based on first principles virtually set in stone. upon reception of a contravening observation, a theist is forced to either alter his/her worldview, reinterpret the stone-set rules to accomodate the new observation, or declare said observation bunk to begin with. in short, theism is static, or at least very resistant to adaptation.
of course, any true philosopher knows that no matter what one believes, one may always be completely wrong. so in that sense, it’s difficult to find one worldview inherently superior to another. and quite frankly, that seems to be a mystery for the ages. however, for the purposes of accurately navigating one’s life and understanding the world and its nature, science certainly seems to be the best bet. (worded softly for those with an inclination towards flaming.)