No, I do not. Steve has made a claim: That these two authors treat science as a religion. And he has utterly failed to support it. He's also claimed that atheists here do the same thing, and he's failed to support that too.I still think you have the burden of proof backwards.
You would first need to show that these authors draw religious conclusions from science. Neither you nor Steve have done so. Again, the positive claim here is that these authors treat science as a religion. That claim has not been supported at all.The statement that one thing does not follow from another is the null hypothesis. The claim that it does is the positive hypothesis. Steve is claiming the null hypothesis, which is circumstantially supported by the fact that other scientists, who presumably have access to the same scientific skills, are people of faith.
'Treating science as a religion' could mean many things, some innocuous such as experiencing awe and wonder at the world as revealed through science, and some not so innocuous such as believing certain scientific pronouncements dogmatically and refusing to countenance contrary evidence. But again, what needs to be shown is that these authors are drawing religious conclusions from science. No-one here has so far even tried to support that claim.As for treating science like a religion, what can that mean other than that someone draws religious conclusions from it? By drawing religious conclusions from science, that science is essentially elevated to the level of being a religion in itself. With the correct understanding of the sense of the term, it is not that far fetched to say that those who draw religious conclusions from science are treating science like religion.