Science VS the bible?

I'm the kind of guy who believes in something only if there is irrefutable evidence that it is. Thus, I tend to believe in science more than the Bible.

My theology teacher back in first year of college is a priest. He told us that the bible is not a good basis for history and other sciences because everything that is written there underwent years and years of being passed down orally, so some parts are either added, removed or altered to fit who was telling it. Believing the Bible is all about faith which is why I can say that I would believe any scientific discoveries even if they were contradicting what the Bible teaches us.

Religion and science are orthogonal. Religion that is trivally disproven by observation (Galileo and four of Jupiter's moons vs. the One True Church and Aristotle) is simply a test of faith. Science cares not a whit about religion - the bible got the value of pi wrong by 4.7%, twice. Th ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and East Indians did better than that. Is 355/113 so difficult? That is too large by 0.0849 parts-per-million. (physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith In the whole of human history across the entire planet not one deity has volunteered Novocain. Hindus have some 300 million gods, Catholics have a couple of thousand, Protestants have three, Muslims and Jews have one (shared). Didn't any of them care? A sphere (Bolyai-Lobechevsky geometry, no parallel lines and any triangle's interior angles must sum to more than 180 degrees) cannot be projected onto a flat surface (Euclidean geometry, one parallel line and any triangle's interior angles must sum to exactly 180 degrees) without distortion. It's called "cartography." Similarly, a curved face cannot be projected onto a linen sheet without distortion. The Shroud of Turin is a cheap forgery. It was made by heating a bas relief sculpture to ~233 C and laying a linen cloth over it until lightly charred. TEST OF FAITH!