The scientific method is well defined...you can Google it and get a far better phrasing than I can type quickly........... but briefly, it means to me being not only open to new data and analysis, but also understanding what sort of detail, processes and techniques are necessarily involved in objective analysis. The key is 'objective'... as close as humans can get to unbiased, objective treatment of data... as well as considering ALL relevant data.

Now you keep referring to this " Both sides are influenced by a worldview that influences how data is interpreted, and both sides endeavour to present scientific arguments to affirm theirs and detract from the other."

And here I must disagree... science, properly done, does NOT seek to detract from 'the other side'......... it seeks to give as much credence to ANY side until the evidence and analysis seems to point in one way and not another. I'm not sure how to put this, but good science has, built into it's own basic procedures, the tests for accuracy and examination. When we ask "how long has mankind been mankind?", we should not assume any answer in advance. If someone starts with 6000 years or so, that needs to be tested against answers that go to 3-4 million years or so! When the test assumes 6000 to be the answer, because calculations from Genesis give that answer, THEY are then trying to " affirm theirs and detract from the other" When they do this, they are only partially acting AS scientists, no matter what credentials they may have. Other scientists, using many, many criteria just cannot cram all the evidence into such a narrow view... several different techniques for measurement demand "millions" of years.
What more can I say?