To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. That's according to the Wikipedia definition.
God-believers win over adherents primarily by indoctrination of children. From my experience, childhood indoctrination is heavily seasoned with fear -- hell, devils, fire, etc. In addition to threats, there is a history of real punishment, including death, to those adults who express disbelief.
In addition, the religious methodology depends on an unscientific method by asking nonbelievers to prove the negative -- "You can't prove there is no X." Replace the "X" with anything -- Zeus, Apollo, Santa -- and this statement remains accurate; that is why it's never considered support for a scientific hypothesis.
These are all well-known attributes of the religious methodology. It works in the mystical world.
In contrast, those supporting a scientific hypothesis win over adherents, primarily adults, through evidence. Indoctrination of children is not an element of the scientific method.
Promoters of a hypothesis must assume the responsibility for presenting supporting evidence. Threats -- hell, fire, death -- are not used to silence nonbelievers. Rather, the scientific method encourages challenging and testing of hypothesis, even evolution. To be taken seriously, they ask challengers to use the scientific methods, not the religious methods.
These are all well-known attributes of the scientific method. It works in the physical world.
-- Ron Paulinski, Ventura