I consider things like the big bang theory (conceived by a Catholic, by the way) and evolution to be scientific principles that can be disproven. We may learn something in the future which disproves them. Indeed, those principles may have already disproven other theories that were predominant before them.
Statements like Jesus rose from the dead, and you flew last weekend, or there is an undetectable invisible pink unicorn inside the wall of my house are generally not disprovable. They are not statements of science.
Now, there are two kinds of religions:
1) Those that incorporate scientific/disprovable statements into their dogma; and
2) Those that don't.
I was arguing that Catholism is a "class 2" religion. For example, Catholicism states that the Bible is inerrent theologically, but not necessarily scientifically. Granted, some Catholics are creationists (which is disprovable by evolutionary science), but that creationist belief is extra-dogmatic; that is, it is an allowed belief, but not a required belief to be a Catholic.
But, some protestant faiths are "class 1" religions in that they require belief in scientifically disprovable concepts like a 6000 year old earth, with no evolution. Those religions are anti-science. Catholicism is not, which brings me back to my original point: I, as a Catholic, need not hold the bible over reason, or reason over the bible--there is not inherent disagreement. Other religions must defend themselves.
Now, that as my point. Perhaps I was missing your point? I admit my words are flowing fast now. I blame it on the pinot grigio.