Point #3 is not technically correct. Research by Jonathan Haidt and others has shown that division is an important human trait, selected for by evolution. This doesn’t mean it is a negative intrinsically, but it does turn out that trying to deny natural divisions has negative consequences that are measurable.
I would rather state that science transcends ideology, because it can debunk key elements of both contemporary conservative and liberal viewpoints. A true science lover would for instance be excited by research showing that being part of a religious community has palpable benefits. The same science lover would be excited by strong evidence for evolution as the source of both our species and our morality. The same would be excited by research showing that climate change is caused by human activity, and that research does not conclusively point to a simple solution.
Because science doesn’t care what you believe. It debunks, it supports, but it requires actual humans to work together, to wrangle over the hidden politics of science (who decides what research is accepted? How does science verify that the process of peer review is in fact unbiased?) and struggle to adjust based on new evidence, and then communicate that effectively to real people out there.
That last part has been a huge failing of science in the past 100 years. Hopefully that will improve going forward.