Hardly. Scientists notoriously hate to admit they're wrong. Example? Light isn't a "photon" or "packet of photons". That's 'old school' thinking. More currently, light is a particle and a wave. Another example? 'Man-made global warming'. It has been debunked as a mostly a money-making scheme (including, advocate scientists keeping their funding flowing) by Al Gore and his ilk. Yet, there are those who still viciously cling to it, screaming "Denier!" to anyone that 'dare' not subserviently follow their global warming dogma. Nor have the 'global warming' fanatics ever explained (let alone apologized!) their not-so-subtle conversion of their bogus claim into 'global climate change'....Science is fully capable of admitting, indeed, designed graciously to admit, that what it thought before was wrong and to replace that wrong idea with something it now thinks is right. Science is not designed to claim, and indeed doesn't deal well with, absolutes... Science looks at an absolute and sees a new avenue of discovery. What does religion look on an absolute as?
...When a tenet of a religion is proven to be false, it's a cause for great sturm und drang and existential angst at the very least, and murder and war at worst... When a tenet of science is overturned as false and replaced by a new tenet held to be more correct, it's just called Tuesday...
Another example: Dinosaurs. Scientists fought long and hard against changing what (they thought) a specific dinosaur looked like. At the time, anyone who even 'suggested' that the bones of a given animal were assembled improperly was ridiculed and branded a scientific 'heretic'. Yet, today we know that the 'scientists' of that day were wrong, and we have a 'truer' (perhaps not even the 'final') picture of what specific dinosaurs looked like when alive. Even today, scientists are still trying to determine the proper 'picture' of the forearms of the T-Rex, and the actual use of those forearms. T-Rex, as scientists viciously clung to believing decades ago, was not, in fact, some slow, lumbering giant.
No, scientists have been as vehemently 'radical' and 'zealous' as any religious group. And just as willing to use their 'club' (scientific 'fact') to beat down any opposition for as long and hard as possible to do so.
And, just like religion, most of science is 'theoretical'. A guess. An opinion. However 'sophisticated' and 'knowledgeable' it's claim to be, it's still just a S.W.A.G. No different then, in that aspect, than religion.