To be fair, Science also involves re-structuring previous beliefs when new information is found... not just throwing them in the trash bin. For example, Newtonian physics was not thrown in the trash bin when relativity came along... rather we recognized that it was true within a certain context (that being for objects traveling very much less than the speed of light.) Relativity was a deeper understanding once we reach limits that had previously been undiscovered. I am in no way saying that religion and science are the same, but rather than human knowledge in any field can and should evolve with time. Where religion becomes frustrating is where new knowledge fails to make an impression and people stubbornly hold onto their old views (sexism, homophobia, Evolution, etc). THAT is the failing of religion, not viewing old ideas in a new light.
Science doesn't make 'truth' claims in the sense of "X is the universal truth" or "This is the divine commandment" - rather it often offers best possible explanations. Science has to be open to change since it's a human endeavor, not divine commandment.
Your parallel doesn't quite work here. Yes Newtonian physics was shown to be approximations when relativity came along (based on empirical evidence, i.e.). It's not even remotely similar to verses of extreme homophobia/sexism or those of blatant scientific errors suddenly taking a U turn (based on nothing, or at best arbitrary interpretations). I know you said "religion and science are not the same" etc. but still that is quite flawed a comparison. Whether this is for the better is a whole different question, of course, that's not what we are talking of here.
Yes, you are correct that science never (or shouldn't) make absolute claims. At best, it can claim that "no evidence has yet been found to the contrary." This is certainly a significant difference between religion and science in that regard (although many people treat their religion as a belief, not an absolute truth and that shouldn't be ignored). However, I still don't see scriptural interpretation U-turns as so very different from scientific revolutions. I think this is because I disagree with you when you say that they are based on nothing or arbitrary interpretations.
Scientific changes are rooted in new experiments/data and religious changes are often rooted in developing science and a vast wealth of new information available to our culture. Consider sexism, for example: for thousands of years, many prominent cultures have considered women to be an inferior form of life to a man. The well-known truths were that women are dumb, weak, needing protection, and suited only for raising children (sometimes not even that). Once the culture developed and both science and experience taught us otherwise, people had to re-evaluate their beliefs. That verse doesn't make sense anymore? Well, either the whole book is crap (a valid option) or it was written within a certain context that isn't valid anymore. This revolution is certainly not built on nothing. Now, some might say that rejecting the whole book as crap is the better choice, but that doesn't mean that keeping parts of it isn't a valid option. Thus my parallel with science.
If you still disagree, I can understand. Different people treat their religious experiences so differently that it is hard to box them all together. I might just be seeing a different facet of things than you. In a lot of ways, I think that religion IS a human endeavor, which I guess makes me a heretic to a lot of other religious folk. I see it as a human endeavor to understand something supernatural. It requires trial and error, and I am certain I'll never arrive at the Truth. That's okay... it's exciting. So is the exploration of science. Anyway, sorry for rambling on, but I just wanted to share a different view of things and I'm interested to hear your opinion.
Religion is too ambiguous to "falsify". What if it's a metaphor? What if it's just a story? What if they were being sarcastic? You don't know, because they never go straight to the point --with good reasons. Science, on the other hand, is very concise and clear. There is no "what if" and it's not possible to interpret it in more than one way. So obviously, when something's proven wrong, it'll be thrown in the trash pile. Religion, on the other hand, is like literature. Think: although "Frankenstein" never happened, it is still a popular book. Why? Because it's a metaphor and a warning. Religion is truth, but not in the way you'd understand it.