I'm definitely out of my league here, but it seems like you're overcomplicating the question.
I won't pretend to be qualified to say whether you are right or wrong, but I'd like to make a few points.
I get the impression that you are trying to address whether science is as [in]consistent with itself as religion is [in]consistent with itself in their attempts to land upon some truth or as another commenter put it, "model of our world".
But the question posed by the article is whether science is consistent with faith. For the author, it is. At least a few commenters are simply stating that the reasons given by the author for this consistency don't resonate with them.
It's also worth noting that while you're using a "mathematical definition of consistency", the commenters you are refuting are probably just meaning that whatever conclusions one reaches via the scientific method are often in disagreement with those arrived at via faith. Now, I don't know what the Christian faith tells us about String Theory - heck, I don't even know enough about what science says about string theory to speak of it with any clarity. But I do know that with the help of science we can figure that the earth we live on is spheroid and revolves around the sun, and I know that the Bible hints slightly at a vastly different conclusion, or at least it was interpreted to do so at one time. On one side of the coin, we can look at evidence, or at the very least hold a theory as probable - and if it's falsified - well it's sad, but the theory changes to better suit the findings. On the other side of the coin, we must take somebody's unchanging word for it, and maybe revisit our interpretations of the same idea only if we're forced to - and otherwise, any objections must be false. I just don't see how anyone can say there's no difference there.
That's nice.
In a sense he's rationalizing away the need to apply the same rigorous requirements to the existence of a god (and therefore whether or not obedience is necessary, followed by a source from which to gather his sense of morality) that one would apply to any other fantastical claim. So what? Nothing wrong with that. So long as he's not applying that same mode of thinking to the actual science he does (which he apparently does not), doesn't negatively impact others with that morality which he derives from his beliefs - or the source of those beliefs, and doesn't demand that others respect or accept those beliefs. Doesn't appear from the article that he's guilty of any of those actions. Then again, I'm unfamiliar with his name or his work.