False equivalence. If it was equivalent, you would not also have working technology resting on the same principles. Religion also tends to not rely on evidence, when it's a requirement of the scientific method, the reason you admit it is materialist, naturalist (methodological naturalism).
Biology is also not concerned about governing human behavior, although behavior is also part of what is being studied. Similarly, because biology is also not concerned with teleology, the denial of death, imaginary parents, tradition, et cetera, religion can deal with tradition, belief and ritual and accept the facts of nature discovered by biology, many indeed reconcile that.
This also means that it's a straw man, confusing knowledge with atheism. Scientific skepticism is however part of the scientific method, to avoid fallacies like jumping to hasty conclusions. Other methods are used to distinguish reality from human impressions and fallacies, for instance double blind experiments. Scientists are humans, biologists are people of various backgrounds and religions. The method makes the difference.
If your doctrines rely on the denial of reliably established knowledge, there may be something else at play underneath, like manipulation, deception and exploitation, relying on obscurantism. Extreme ignorance and alienation are even exploited for political corruption and conflict, other than personal gain.
