Since you have realised that "religion" may not be as black and white as you may hope it can be defined, it means that your original yes/no question on whether Science is a religion is kind of meaningless. you need a better definition of what you meant by "religion" first (as someone else has already mentioned).This in my opinion raises the question of how we define "religion". ...... Alot of religions emphasize understanding the world at a deeper level and give a more personal approach to it. They lack the clear hirearchical structure of the Abrahamic religions and many of them do not give any ethical codes to live to (and all those things.)
One important point to remember is that this "starting point" is usually regarded as fixed for "religion" (normal usage of the term), while the so-called starting point for "Science" can be evolving based on our interactions with the world. And so there is a difference. (but of course, it still depends on how you define "religion")I would start from the very basics and then move on if we can:
BOTH, in my opinion, require the same belief as a starting point- Belief that what they are doing is right. .......
For a better discussion see (links):
Taking Science on faith, by Paul Davies
and the subsequent discussion by leading scientists
(I personally quite like Lee Smolin's response) The Reality Club