You convincingly made a few white lies in your statements. You said in science you are taught that science is fact just like in religion classes you are taught about religion. That statement, alone, just made a double standard. The CORRECT (or at least modest) way to make that statement would have been like this:
In science you are taught the methodologies of science, and the speculative results. Those results may be driven by facts or potential evidence, but the conclusions themselves are not facts. In addition, because some scientists absolutely refuse to accept alternative answers due to lack of scientific fact for those answers, those scientists will claim that that alternative answer is, and must be, false. In other words, the unknown and unclarified becomes the false. This is the biggest farce of science. So science class, like a religion studies class, will provide you the "best explanation" according to that branches' understandings, which may or may not completely ignore the studies of other branches. Lately, religion studies classes have been much more open to evidence from other philosophical branches, whereas those who are hardcore scientists and naturalists often deny any other branch its validity.
A modest and wise scientist will always say "This is the best explanation science can give if ONLY scientific evidence is ever considered for a possible answer. There are certainly viable, experiential, evidential alternative answers that do not come as the highest suggestion of science, and science is certainly not the end all and be all of conclusive truths in this world."
Anyone else is selling something.