I've never been a strong fan of Popper's definition of science. The fact remains that for most of us, science is something taught in schools, and we never have the opportunity to test it for ourselves. "Research" is a different matter, but I feel that many professional scientists confuse the two.

For myself, at least, I believe in "science" based upon certain axioms that are accepted on faith alone. Yes, these axioms might be subject to review, but the same can be true of religious axioms (witness the many "redefinitions" of Christianity at Ecumenical councils etc.

What eventually dissuaded me from the "science" = "religion" viewpoint, was a conversation with scribb1e a couple of years ago, where I discovered that Buddhism does not come with a "story of how things are". I have to wonder how much of our debate is polluted by a particularly Christian definition of "religion". Don't forget that the term includes everything from the worship of Artemis, to Taoism, to Sikhism, to the Shamanistic beliefs.