Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Some religions use "evidence", but not evidence. That's beside the point anyway, I was trying to get at the fact that religious dogma starts with a premise - the truth - that has to be accepted. Evidence may then be looked for to confirm this truth.
Science works in the other direction.
'Science' is constantly being revolutionized because hitherto accepted hypothetical premises are abandoned under the weight of new observations. 'Science' like [traditional] 'religion' operates on theories that make sense of observations.
If you were going to rationalize a case for a critical difference, I'd say it would be trying to operate without giving human beings any relevance. But I don't think 'science' does that, certainly most scientists don't.