if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.
what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.
That is what most hypothetical science is...a belief in a magic power.
No.
No magic involved. An hypothesis will not be accepted as more than a possibility until it can be tested and passes the test. Making accurate predictions of previously unknown effects is the strongest evidence that a hypothesis is correct, but explaining, with a plausible cause, several mystifying but not obviously related phenomena also works.
Late 19th century:
The orbit of Mercury had been found to be precessing about the sun in a way that cannot be fully explained by classical mechanics (Newtonian physics and Keplerian orbits) unless a hitherto unknown, and, so far, undetected mass exists. All efforts to locate said mass failed.
Early 20th century:
General relativity, an hypothesis that relates gravity and space in a previously unexpected way is proposed. It explained the precession of Mercury's orbit but also predicted some other, rather bizarre, effects, like light being bent by gravity. After it was validated by seeing starlight being affected by the sun as predicted, as observed in the May 29, 1919 eclipse, it became the theory to beat. It has passed every other test in the century that followed its development.
Similarly, also late 19th century:
Geologists and biologists could explain a lot of what's observed, but their hypotheses required a vast amount of time to be plausible.
Physicists and chemists cannot provide a plausible mechanism for the sun to produce the energy it is producing, or to explain the heat flow from the interior of the earth, for more than a few thousand years at most; not even a tiny fraction of the time needed.
Radioactivity and nuclear energy, a previously unknown and vastly more powerful energy source is discovered.
After that, enough energy for billions of years of sunlight and a heat source within the earth are not only plausible, but likely.
In the vernacular of this forum, those 18th century geologists needed a "magical energy source" to justify their hypotheses. Until an adequate energy source was discovered to be not so magical after all, their ideas remained in the realm of "interesting", but hypothetical.
We can't prove it, observe it, or replicate it as even the most basic scientific method will require. However, don't mind that, it happened as we said, it is FACT...anyone who calls us out for our hypocrisy or doesn't accept our false conclusion of the group think bubble, we will call ignorant/brain dead/barbarians etc etc.
You don't get any more "religion like" than that.
Nice strawman. Hypothetical ideas like dark matter, strings, and the like will be treated as just ideas until they have better support, and if new data disproves them or a better idea comes along that displaces them, they will be mostly forgotten or the subject of posts by the likes of sandokhan. There's nothing wrong with postulating explanations for unexpected observations; no serious scientists will recognize them as more than hypothetical until there's actual support for them.
At least I admit my beliefs are just that...a belief.
Cool. And scientists' beliefs are, or have been, tested with experiments. Most will change their belief if new evidence shows they were wrong.
I consider them a fact, however, I don't shit my pants and start belittling someone who does not agree with me.
Some scientific principles are so strongly supported by evidence that they are considered facts. Often, even those are shown to be "useful approximations" as more precise data comes in, such as: the earth is a sphere; no, it's actually an oblate spheroid with about 0.3% flattening; no, it's a slightly irregular geoid varying from an ellipsoid by up to a few dozen meters. If you don't need the extreme precision of the geoid model, the ellipsoid can be considered correct. If you don't need the improved precision of the ellipsoid, a sphere is a good-enough approximation (and
much easier to work with).
Heck, if you're dealing with a limited enough area, you can even presume sea level datum is a flat plane and get away with it, knowing full well that the datum is actually something very close to a very large sphere; for the area of a square mile or so, the difference is inconsequential for most purposes, and the calculations involved are vastly simplified.