This question of the consistency of science and religion has started many arguments, and these arguments are often futile. In logic an argument is based on one or more hypotheses, and a conclusion either follows as in the case of a valid argument, or does not follow as in the case of an invalid argument. But, the hypotheses are always universally agreed upon. Herein lies the problem.
The question posed is either answered definitely yes or definitely no. The reason for the differences is one underlying hypothesis. First, agreement is needed on whether the Bible is to be taken literally, or whether poetic license was used in a way that the underlying idea is what is being conveyed. The Catholic Church, and many other religions that ascribe to the same belief, requires the Bible be considered accurate on faith issues, not as an historical document. Another group of Christians called fundamentalists claim as the word of God the Bible is to be taken literally. And this is a variation in basic belief among Christians, so a universal belief among all religions inclusive of religions not Christian is certainly not possible.
The point here is that if we cannot agree on the hypothesis of the meaning of the Bible, we will reach different conclusions.