Is Science a Religion?
Science explores the natural world and makes predictions, retrodictions and constantly tries to falsify itself. Very few religions make daily attempts to falsify themselves. Very few religions (certainly not Christianity or Islam) spend day after day trying to refute the very fundamental tenets of their beliefs. If we use Christianity as an example, Christians accept on faith that God is a holy trinity and that one of the godhead came to earth as man, died as a man and rose again as a god. That tenet is not tested, it is not testable and it is not science. When most people say that 'science is religion' most of the time they are speaking of evolutionary biology. In extreme cases it means everything from geology to chemistry to physics, but I find that extremists generally don't understand geology, chemistry and physics. Instead they view those sciences as supporting evolution, and they then reject them as religious.
What I find particularly odd is that the assertion 'science is religion' is actually used in the pejorative. It's not elevating science, it is denigrating science. That we all know, but how many of use pay equal attention to the fact that when calling 'evolution a religion', they are also denigrating their religion. The mocking tones are really saying 'evolution is stoopid' (to paraphrase inmate Kent Hovind). But if evolution is a religion and it's stupid, then aren't Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism etc all 'stoopid' as well? In calling science a religion, creationists are shooting themselves in the foot. Read these two sentences and tell me which one is more likely to be defended by a creationist.
(1) If science is a religion, then why should I believe evolution?
(2) If Christianity is a religion, then why should I believe Christ rose from the dead?
They will try to separate these two statements and convince you that you should believe in Christ even though it is a religion and should not buy into evolution because it is a religion.