Science is not a religion. It's a process.

Belief in your own interpretation of the results of scientific experiment may be religious, as they may have to be if you don't or can't understand the experiments your believing in.

Please do not confuse religion with morality. More religion certainly does not equal more morality. Looking at how most people judge the behaviour of people who literally interpret their religion it would seem obvious to me that the exact opposite is true.

The good and the bad morality that is documented by religion comes from the mouths of humans. The good messages in religion are unoriginal and largely common sense. The bad moral messages in religion are gleefully glossed over... how do we decide which morals we should take from religion?

We use our inherent morality. If we have such good inherent morality why would we need to take any queues from religion?

To take the writings of a few humans around 1500 years ago and take them to be our moral compass in modern society is foolish, at best.

It's fairly ironic that all these global warming deniers were happy enough to consume the results of scientific process by buying cars and packaged food... yet when science starts telling them that they should probably rethink their habits they are wanting to burn science at the stake. How does that morality (or logic) work?