Lots of thoughtful, interesting discussion.

My take, and I echo some others below, is that science is not the same kind of thing as religion, having a basis of conjecture, experimentation, evaluation and either rejection or refinement of the original conjecture. Certainly not all scientific concepts are provable, but they are all testable in some way. Religion is based on faith, on things that by defintion cannot be proved.

That said, science and religion both satisfy needs of humans, and I think that science can satisfy some of the same needs as religion. Understanding the world around us and our place in it, where it/we came from and where it/we are going, slaking the thirst for knowledge.

But I think much of religion is based on fear - fear of ceasing to exist after death, and fear of being "on our own" without a parent figure to fall back on. Certainly it is more comforting to believe that you will conciously survive after your physical life ends, and that you will reconnect with loved ones in some wonderful place free of fear and hurt.

As I've discussed in the past, I think much of human behaviour is driven by fear, and it isn't difficult for some people to co-opt religion and use it to fan fear for political reasons.

But science has the potential of easing some of those fears, especially if more basic fears of violent death, or disease, or starvation, or poverty, can be eased first. An understanding of how the universe really works, even on a less-than-PhD level, can give some measure of security (even if some scientific concepts ar themselves frightening, like global warming).

In my experience, science has provided wonder, and awe, and satisfaction, and comfort, and peace, and I think it can do the same for rmore people. Thus scientific "evangelism", in the sense of making science relevant and accessible to more people, is an important endeavour.