I see some unscientific faults in your logic here. You point out the complexity of earth reflectivity indicated by the relative blue in the oceans, yet the possibility that similar complexity might apply to what people think or believe is not considered.
Just because someone does not believe in the big bang, for example does not also mean they are automatically religious, though the big bang being exposed as a lie might add some validity to some of the arguments of religion, specifically that money has a lot to do with why we might believe this or that. Further, just because we might believe there seems to be some validity to religion, does not automatically mean we reject science.
Otherwise your story here would need to be a book, or even a series of books I suppose. But surely the end result of writing this story, is that you convince only yourself, just a little, that the issue is more simplistic than it really is, that science and religion are mutually exclusive and we all have to choose entirely one or the other, when really it is just you making that choice, by writing this story for a little financial reward, based after all, on entirely no evidence.