There is some danger in publicly adopting a "science has become religion" position. Just as "trust the science" can be used as a rhetorical weapon, "science has become another religion" can be too .. and usually to more dangerous effect because a lot of what is essentially known bullshit (see https://www.callingbullshit.org) gets accommodated by the latter compared to the former.

There are reasonable accepted empirical approaches in accepted use today. Any team that follows these methods and reports honestly can be trusted more than a team that doesn't.

Also "trust" is a loaded word .. but mostly we just mean "predictability" - ex: to "trust someone" means to be sure that if you know what they've said, you can predict what they'll do. Much of empirical science is about offering up data and models that aid such predictability, so declaring "trust the science is extinct" is an outright rejection of these empirical methods (ex: randomised control trials) that have taken a long time to mature and take root as standard practice.

What is needed though is to be able to separate the science from policy making. As Dietrich Dörner has shown in "The Logic of Failure" [1], folks in the hard sciences don't fare very well when policy making in systems with complex causally interconnected parts is tasked upon them due to learnt heuristics that don't fare well in that world.

Let science do its thing - which is inform and educate. Let policies be made by those with more full understanding of the system into which changes need to be effected.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-Si...

You may enjoy this book: https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-Si...