No it doesn't. The fact that most are unable to reproduce it doesn't mean they can't reproduce it. Many do in fact are interested in these sort of experiments and methodologies and do them outside of their profession. All of this is different from the practice of religion. I have no idea how you compare a methodology to a ritual. The methodology comes from easily provable axiomatic facts about statistics and logic. The same cannot be said for rituals.

It’s easy for me to believe that art and religion have formed into science and engineering.

Why? They're built on completely different principles and methodologies.

We probably disagree that they are built differently. I’m willing to let you believe they are seperate and ask that you let Me hold my ideals. If you want to discuss you would have to state what the differences are. Declaring they are different and expecting me to know why you think that is a real hindrance.

It is not obvious to me.

You're free to hold onto your ideals, but if you're not willing to defend them, maybe don't go out of your way to share them.

I’m happy to defend them. I just don’t know what you think is correct. I understand you believe I’m wrong. I see the linkage as crystal clear evolution of human thought.

You have some other ideal I assume.

I see you as unwilling to defend your ideas.

What does Science do to those in its ranks who challenge Global Warming Dogma? Flat Earth? Alternative medicine?

Tell them to present some evidence or go pound sand? (“You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.” -Tim Minchin)

Or, you know, destroy and deny existence of evidence that was previously abundant and considered obvious. Or move goalposts on what's considered "evidence" at all. Or manufacture mountains of data and statistics to simply drown out anything else.