To argue that evolution is a religion is just silly, but there is possible credence to the claim of science as a religion, but you'd have to define religion and understand faith in specific ways.
While faith is usually understood to be belief in spite of evidence, there are those who take articles of faith as self-evident. This mode of thought exists in theologians and the "common man" alike. I'm sure we've all heard claims from theists that nature itself stands as a self-evident declaration of the existence of God. While most of us do not see the self-evidence in these claims, if we accept for a moment that these articles of faith are, indeed, self-evident to the faithful, then there's no essential difference between the faithful accepting an article of faith and a geometer accepting the axioms of geometry. The axioms of geometry are understood, by definition, as unprovable but self-evident truths.
Science, too, it can be argued is built axiomatically. Beginning specifically with the Axiom of Universality, which states that the universe operates via the same essential governing principles everywhere. These axiom is, clearly, unprovable but it seems to be fairly self-evident.
With this parallel drawn, and a rough understanding of science as a generalized "belief system," then science can, indeed, be understood as a religion.
But, as has already been said, this all boils down to a question of definitions.