And that, actually, is a good point- that a successful religion *must* have some reason behind it. Observation and theorization based on human nature, is most of what theology really is. In a way it is misnamed. It isn't study of God. It is study of human reaction to God, and thus is a sub-branch of sociology to begin with.
It took a rational religion to create the scientific method. I'd suggest that it takes at least a reasonable religion to survive more than a few generations at all.
But I seem to have strayed from my original, which wasn't so much about religious theology being within the bounds of its own axioms, but science straying away from testable predictions and into fictional, non testable, conclusions. Others in this thread, however, have pointed out that's more "pop sci" than science, more media than actual experimentation. Including in the case of the original article, which was using the primary definition of a hologram (that is, an n+1 dimensional object encoded into n-dimensional space) as opposed to the popular definition of a hologram (a simulation of a n+1 dimensional object projected from an n-dimensional projector). Another good example of the later is Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene- complete science fiction analogy masquerading as science.