I have contended before that science is a religion.
The belief of the "religion of science" is that the entire universe obeys laws that are predictable, knowable, and observable (with the right equipment), even if we currently do not know what all of those rules are.
The scientific method, by definition, involves only repeatable experiments. If there were a phenomenon that was not repeatable, and your explanation did not abide by existing theories and "laws", then it cannot be accepted.
(I use "law" loosely here because by definition there is no principle that could NEVER be dismissed, only theories that have been proven by experiments for a very long time)
If, tomorrow, a universal phenomenon were revealed that was predictable, observable, AND repeatable, then science would have no choice to accept it with no question. The process of being accepted might be long (takes a while to confirm with those experiments of course) but by definition it would be accepted.
Scientific Method is the ultimate "verify, then trust", which is why some people treat it as a religion, they forget to "verify" - in a religion, "trust" is essential, but the "empirically verify with repeatable experiments" is not.
That said, I am a person of Faith, though I consider myself a fan of science because of the improvement of our way of life because of it. What I'm not a fan of is violator's of Wheaton's Law in pursuit of either Science or Faith because, "I know I'm right! I speak the Truth!"