I do not believe that this is true at all.
Or at least, I don't believe that it ought to be true - or that it is necessarily true.
Science, or rather recent scientific findings, are generally transmitted to the wider population via the media. Science itself, as is often noted on this site, is not a collection of articles of faith - but a process. Religion is not a process, it is a collection of articles of faith. This is the difference. Science, the process, generates as its output a set of testable hypotheses. Some of these, some of the more esoteric ones related to subatomic particles and so-on, are rather hard to test. But the evidence that things like Quantum Mechanics and Relativity work are all around us. Computers are GPS would neither be where they are today if it were not for the hypotheses tested by the scientific method.
Now the media, that's another story. If the wider population's exposure to this set of hypotheses - any of which could in principal be overturned at any time - is only through the more or less illiterate scribblings of the popular media, then yes. Everything is taken on faith, and in this sense we do have what is effectively a religion. This is because the scientific community is woeful at explanations digestible by the general public, and usually hedge their bets in rather unconvincing ways. They may say 'there is no evidence for', meaning 'it's probably not true, but this is a process and more research is always needed'. That's not terribly convincing, and the popular media pick up the slack.