Saying that science is just theories that get accepted as fact is too narrow a view. Asteroids are not theories. The structure of our solar system (as mentioned earlier in this thread) is not a theory. Theories lead to research which leads to discovery which leads to proven science.

Religion actually is only theory, which is offered as truth without proof - but more dangerous, without even research or discovery.

It could actually be argued that science is the quest to understand that which is god. In fact, I would offer the theory that anyone feeling threatened by scientific theories and research has a fundamental conflict to address in their own definition of what god really is. If god is the source of that which lies beyond our understanding, where is the conflict in increasing our understanding? Doesn't scientific research and discovery by definition, bring us closer to god?

Why, in our construct of god, have we included the caveat that he/she/it can never be found? That limitation is the very reason that science makes god unnecessary. Belief in such a god only survives if I willfully remain unaware of other explanations. And if certain explanations are proven for certain things, then those things must not be God because God can not be understood. God gets smaller. Therefore, all new understanding is in direct conflict with God.

What if instead, we allowed science to reveal the nature of god to us?