ADDITION: The question you now ask is if scientific and religious assertions are different in quality. Scientists and philosophers always struggled to come up with a clear-cut, crisp definition what a "scientific assertion" would be, but if you allow to be vague, a scientific assertion in its ideal case should be
- self-consistent (no logical flaws)
- it should explain facts and with this explanation it is possible to predict currently unknown facts or shed light in unexplained matter
- it does not involve anything which is not already known, subjective or superfluous
- and its predictions should be checkable to evaluate its truthfulness
Just for info: Atoms were seriously considered as incorrect assumption by prominent scientists like Ostwald and Mach during the beginning of the 20th century.
Some religious assertions are illogical: Genesis claims first that animals came before humans and one page after that claims its exact contradiction. Take the four evangelists versions of Jesus resurrection side by side and try to get a consistent picture.
Some are outright bizarre: The all-knowing omnipotent God needs to move after Moses to kill him in an inn ?! (Exodus 4:24).
Some religious assertions are (almost) impossible to verify: Is there a God (if you describe it more from a pantheistic viewpoint) ? Is there a Hell ?
So many, many religious assertions cannot be considered scientific or even rational. Given your previous question I assume that you really want to ask: Why not replacing the religious assertions with scientific ones ?
Uh, well, because it does not work ? The current scientific viewpoint has a severe problem to judge behavior. They are not able to say: This is good and this is bad. You could try to ask the anthropologists for general human laws to form a base of understanding to work from. And they will come back and tell you that they asked the (very aggressive tribe) and the (very peaceful tribe) and it is absolutely hopeless to find a least common denominator. Worse, every attempt to write down a general rulebook of behavior will seriously piss off some cultures and the author will be called supremacist/racist.
And it also ignores reality. The people who call themselves XYZs ignore often inconvienient assertions about their religion XYZ. For your example: Alevi women are not forced to hide their face even if Alevism is considered a part of Islam, so your allegation is not always true. The Western World where most people still call themselves Christian do not stone homosexuals even when the Old Testament strictly demands it. The jewish life is a never ending battle of breaking extremely inconvienient and intricate historical laws in the present by finding loopholes, unintended exclusions and creative interpretations. And people who call themselves rationalists can be exactly as illogical and emotional when conclusions does not fit their worldview. Penn & Teller have served the public a steaming pile of their own bullshit when they questioned global warming and recycling because it offends their liberatarian worldview.
So while people would like to have scientific guidelines, I do not think that it is possible to get ones for the mentioned reasons above.