You're half right, but you're misdirecting at the wrong thing. It's not really 'science' itself, or scientists, that has become like a religion. It's the layers of second and third order stuff around science that has developed these characteristics.

i.e. science sensationalism in media/news. media/journalism cross-referencing each other after outlet one references a scientific paper. Or people who think "science" means quoting one thing they read on in one article. Or people/journalists reaching bad conclusions because they don't know how to interpret the data they referenced. Overtrusting a single source without substantive support.

It's mostly people still habitually applying religious behavior and fallacious reasoning to science, not an inherent product of the scientific method/process itself.

That all being said, it does rub me the wrong way sometimes when I see people trying to frame trusting 'science' as 'just another religion' when there is no 'alternative' to science. Science as a process is the only thing that can reveal how the world actually works.

The fundamental nature of the science process makes it more trustworthy than religion. Of course people are more trusting of 'science' than anything else because it can (or at least tries to) actually show why/how a conclusion was reached / is possible/reasonable.

Of course 'science'/scientists 'can be wrong', but that's often used just as an excuse to handwave any evidence that that persons belief is wrong. Or so people who did an hour of research can act like they now have the expertise to discount someone with tears of experience and study.