Right, but science isn't a logical system since the explanations are accountable to the data.

Granted, scientists may be looking for a simple set of equations that account for all physical phenomena, and the question would be whether those equations are self-evident or necessarily true. If not, the scientist's work wouldn't be over since you might have to explain how those "fundamental" relationships came to hold.

Perhaps you're making the point, though, that the religious system is meant to be absolute, whereas the naturalist's is more tentative and open-ended not so much for logical reasons but for methodological or cultural ones.