I prefer not to be bound by labels. Science, religion, philosophy, and so on are just avenues to seek truth.
Science certainly has some core beliefs that guide its process. You might say that it is a pragmatic form of logical empiricism, and perhaps even some materialism. I haven't looked at the definitions of various philosophies for a long time, so I could be a bit off.
I think the main reason that scientists and science enthusiasts resist being clumped in with "religion" is because religion is often (unfairly) seen as the province of those who do not think, or rather those who choose to stop thinking about deeper questions in order to accept easy answers. We want the freedom to keep asking, and seeking answers.
Unfortunately, on the internet, this science/region debate usually pits new earth creationists against atheist evolutionary biologists. This makes those who advocate for "religion" look stupid, and those who advocate for "science" look godless. Unfortunately, the "intelligent design" community just makes things worse with ridiculous arguments about hurricanes building cars and such. Does a ball end up at the bottom of a hill because of "random chance"? Does the fact that it doesn't mean it as "intelligently placed" at the bottom of the hill?
There are plenty of God fearing/God loving scientists in the world. There is no inherent contradiction in turning to religion in matters of "ought" and science for matters of "is". (For those who claim that nutrition, economics, or well-being psychology, answers "ought", I think you miss the basic assumptions involved there. There is certainly good guidance, but the primary aims in each of these things is not something that I believe ought to be "objectively" calculated.)