Is Science a Religion?

Lets look at this religion and see what it gives as codes of conduct.
Many members of this site have claimed that science cannot be a religion because it has no rules. Some good examples of rules in the religion of science are as follows: The religion of Science requires one to be honest. When I proposed the theory that scientist may have fabricated fossil evidence the response was,” Scientist are required to be honest and the whole field of science is based on honesty." But, why do scientist have to be honest? Is their any religion holding them to this trait? Maybe the religion of science requires honesty? We now have one code of conduct in the religion of science. But there are more codes of conduct in science. You have to save a human before you save a bacteria or a virus. This is a law put forth by science and it seemingly has no basis. Why should a human beings life be valued over a virus's life? Scientists search for ways of killing bacterium and not for ways of saving them. Think of all the scientists who preach about global warming. What is wrong with the human beings killing themselves off through global warming? Maybe the religion of science believes in the preservation of human beings and their environment. So many morals and codes in a religion that many think is not even a religion. If science is not a religion, why do scientist try to act with morals while choosing a humans life over a virus's.

Quantum Mechanics? Has anyone here actually read the papers written by Einstein? Can anyone here claim that they know all the proofs for Evolution? Do you people "Believe" the scientists over the religious leaders? Is science your belief and your religion? Or, do you truly understand the physics behind there theories.

The first one I saw was message number 8.

Message number 3.

"Science is not a religion, as others here have said, because it does not concern itself with matters of faith, of morality, of purpose."

You are trying to play with my wording but you are missing the point.
When I say rules I mean rules of conduct. Morals are rules of conduct.

Morals are owned only by religion. If you have no religion then you have no reason to value a persons life over a virus's life.

I did address your points. And I have many reasons to consider science to be a religion. On a side note, the main part of my post you seem to have missed. If you "BELIEVE" the scientists, then you have just subscribed to a "RELIGION".

Is a conscious something that is scientific? Have scientists even proven that an unbiased human never exposed to religious thought would even have something called a conscious. Do you believe cannibalism is immoral? If you do you are obviously not from Indonesia where such a thing was once practiced. Why is it that morals came to the world after the religions did?

You may have morals; but where do they come from? Have you ever read Hitler's book. He believed that all of the modern morals were all brought to this world through religion (namely the Jews). He executed as many Jews as he could to eliminate morality from the world. He did not believe that it was wrong to kill because he did not believe in any religion. How would you argue with Hitler?

I am not off topic. Science holds with certain morals. Morals are purely the invention of religion. A proof to this is the fact that religions came to the world before morals. Did I jump off topic at all?

It is you who scare me. You don't kill because you think it is moral not to. What would be if a person killed your relative that you loved? Would you think that it is a moral thing to kill him now?
If so, who is more dangerous? me or you?

Please explain yourself. I see big religious books which describe the code of ethics.

Do you know how morals could "evolve"? Morals are not facts. Science should exclude morals. Morals came from religion. Why is it that the human animal is the only "moral" animal around?