Technically, science in itself should not be a religion. However, it is understandable why someone would rate it as such. The reason is is because all throughout history scientists have argued differing ideological viewpoints and on faith like it is a religion. Examples are during the time of Galileo when Galileo held the Copernican view of the universe, and he made bitter enemies of the University professors at the time who held the Aristotle view of the universe. Moreover, both opposing sides hold these views vehemently and on faith like it is a religon. Nowadays, little has changed in respect to what I said previously. For the past century, as we all know, new theories of the universe has emerged. Theories such as the Big Bang which proved the universe has a beginning and the six finely tuned values of the universe (where if any one of these values were just a smidgen off life wouldn't be possible) gives the appearance of a Universe that is a fix-up or is designed. Therefore, due to the fact our universe appears to be designed by a creator that transcends the universe has made plenty of sceintist uneasy. As a result, new hypothesis such as the multiverse, String theory, and Intelligent design has been used to explain this away. Instead of cooperating and seeing each other's views you have your multiverse hypothesis scientist who loathe your string theorist who also loathe your intelligent design people and this isn't the way the sceintific picture ought to be. Science by definition is coming up with an empiracle falsifiable method used for predicting phenemona and understanding the "How's" of our universe, not ideologies used by scientist today and in the past. However, as you can see many scientist argue over unfalsiable hypothesis that can't be tested or is difficult to test in the laboratory. String theory, the multiverse hypothesis, and Intelligent design all can't be or are difficult to test in the laboratory which goes against the rules of how the scientific method ought to be. To sum all this up, science should give empiracle falsifiable explanations of the "How's" to this universe whereas religion answers the "why's". When a scientist comes up with a hypothesis that can't be tested one shouldn't argue about it on faith. They should try to hone it into a model that can be tested then that's when it's worth to debate about. This goes to show that scientists (by no means all) can cling dogmatically to ideas as much as rigid religious people do to theirs.