String theory and multiverse: I'm open. My view on scientific issues is the scientific view. When the evidence reaches a point that it would be "perverse to withhold provisional assent" I grant that assent. So, for example, I accept the major theories that have general assent among scientists, such as relativity, quantum theory, "big bang-esque" type theories, the usual. I'm also open to the more modern theories. I find them all fascinating...neither required by my faith nor barred by my faith.
You said: Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error. Is this your postulate, Shirley?
The bible is a theological document. Anything historical or scientific which is not required for the theology is extra material, and not necessarily inerrent. Thus, if it says that bats are fowl (as it seems to do in Leviticus), that would be a scientific error, not a theological error. In general, Catholics believe in theological inerrency of Scripture; some other religions believe in total inerrancy.
You said: ...what makes you believe "those religions" (and I'll remove Protestantism from this conversation) are [sic] antiscience and yet Catholicism is not? Does Catholicism believe that Jesus turned water into wine?
Only those religions (not all protestant religions) that add disprovable concepts to their dogma have problems with science. Any church that requires its adherents, for example, to believe that the earth is 6000 years old in direct contradiction to the fossil record, background radiation, etc. The Catholic Church does not require this.
I understand your point on the water into wine. The direct answer to your question is yes. And yet, now, no one can disprove that, can they? Convenient for us, I know, but that is kind of the point. We don't have any beliefs that are currently disprovable by science, so we are not anti-science. We recognize that miracles (isolated deviances from outcomes expected by science) can occur, but those one-timers are not repeatable, and so not testable and disprovable by science.
You said: You seem to waffle between science and "non-scientific" faith whenever it suits your game.
I am big on science and faith. I'm not waffling back and forth. I embrace both. Because I believe there is no contradiction between them, I don't have to waffle.
[Edit: typos; clarificaton of inerrancy point]