Well, you're overthinking, really. I understand. People tend to to that a lot this days. Terms, meanings etc, so many things. I only said in my original post that the resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm is as prevalent in science as is in religion. I'm not attacking or defending anything really. They're human, institutions, and so they're fallible;
I was calling you out for your both-siderism. I still am.
Two switch out of having only two camps, I pose this variants:
Is resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm as prevalent in physics as it is in phrenology?
I think empirical evidence shows that phrenology - "measuring the contour of the skull can predict personality traits" to quote Wikipedia - is pure bunkum. Therefore, I think that anyone who holds that opinion does so from dogmatic faith.
But your both-siderism suggests that phrenologists are no more dogmatic than physicists. Which I disagree with - see my earlier examples where physicists rejected earlier widely-held views given evidence to the contrary.
My conclusion is that different institutions have different levels of dogmatism, so a claim of equivalence cannot easily be made without some sort of basis for the claim.
As another example, I think that as an institution evolutionary psychology has a higher level of dogmatism than solid state physics, and as evidence I can point to articles like "Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?" by Subrena E. Smith, doi:10.1007/s13752-019-00336-4 and the lack of corresponding articles for solid state physics.
(BTW, I do dislike your use of the reified term "Science". That's a mythical pedestal which nobody can stand on.)
You write "Of course it's not the absolute norm for all Scientific Community but it's abundant".
You then also mean that dogma is also not the absolute norm for religions, but it's abundant, right?
Which leads us to a quagmire, since dogma, formally speaking, "is an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion." (Quoting Wikipedia.)
Though you mean something more like "it is applied to some strong belief whose adherents are not willing to discuss it rationally." (Same Wikipedia entry.)
I gave a list of several scientific principles which were thought to be correct, then demonstrated to be incorrect, and where there are now few adherents. I could easily list more.
What are the equivalents in religion to, say, the Planck's introduction of quantum mechanics to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe problem?