Who won?
Six million children die each year because of poverty. In our luxurious, comfortable, healthy and satisfying lives, in which science has provided us with medicine and abundances of food this happens. Is it a failing of science or is it a failing of religion? Neither, it is a failing of man, with its greedy, selfish, NIMBY approach to life.
Terrorists can blow innocent people lives apart, literally. Is it a failing of science or is it a failing of religion? Both, extreme religious views teach hate, but science puts the weapons in the hands of warped minds.
Global warming threatens the survival of life on planet. So the things science have given us for those fortunate enough to lead lives of luxury, are actually a cause for concern with regard to our continued existence.
Some of the great minds you quoted believed in a greater being. They were not all right all of the time. Aristotle spoke of slavery being in accord with natural law and of the natural inferiority of women; why because this was the accepted view of his time. Einstein said "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind". His belief in a God did not lessen the impact of his life work.
What could be benefits of religion?
To teach and encourage morality. To lend support within a group from those with compatible beliefs in how to live life correctly. These are tangible benefits that religion can offer which science does not.
So is it really a matter of which has won. In ways, both have failed and both have had success. Yes you will argue that the success and victory of science is, in your mind conclusive but what you fail to ask is
Have the advancements of science in any respects damaged us, our planet and its future?
Could the incredibly powerful tool of religion, benefit humankind, if it was employed in a virtuous way?
Personally, I appreciate the thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi, whoes considered views included
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems"
"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed"
"You must be the change you want to see in the world"
Whatever form that change takes, if a person is a brilliant scientist who has the mind and the intellect to bring about improvement for this planet and its inhabitants or they are a believer in God who choses to share love and compassion with someone less fortunate, then they have won. As individuals they have won.
And what possible gain is there in establishing a winner between two subject matters anyway? Should we not seek to rectify the parts of both that are wrong?
