Well it depends on whether you’re asking about the particular facts of the matter, or the methods by which those facts are known. The findings of science might conflict with certain scriptural interpretations, so if you insist on the truth of those interpretations, then clearly they are mutually exclusive.
There’s also something to be said about method. How do you determine if what scripture says is true? Well you might do that by doing science. But then you’re doing science, not “faith”.
What is the faith-method anyway? To just believe no matter what? To insist on “scripture is true by definition”? To forever seek alternative interpretations when conflicts arise, and if so, when do you decide to stop doing that? How many synonyms of words will you go through, and how stretched are you going to allow the allegories and metaphors to become, to preserve the consilience between empirical facts and religious texts?
How could it? Suppose you do an observation, or perform some measurement, and then obtain some value. Then you read scripture and it says (or at least implies) something else than what you observe. How could scripture then “refute” the observation? Scripture might perhaps contradict something you’ve observed or measured, but then what do you do? Do you just take scripture to be correct by definition, and disbelieve your lying eyes? Do you now go searching for an alternative way to understand what scripture says?
If you do the latter, how far will you go? If you allow yourself to keep going forever in search of an alternative interpretation that is consistent with observation, have you not then in effect defined scripture to be true no matter what? You are searching for other interpretations because you *then in essence take scripture to be true by definition?