Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[Angrboda]

As Steven Novella said "There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"

Now, some people, like communists, nazis, or some religions, do mix ideology with science, but then it's not science anymore, but pseudoscience. And that's why ideologies and religions are usually against science because science looks at the evidence to reach a conclusion, unlike ideology and religion which start with the conclusion and then dismiss the evidence that proves them wrong.

The fact that a scientific ideology isn't disagreeable in no way affects whether it is ideological. The nazis didn't find their ideology disagreeable either. Science without values is aimless. It is the aimed judgement of its practitioners which makes it valuable. You are conflating two different senses of the word ideological. One sense, in which ideological is defined as, "3. Of or relating to a political, economic, or other ideology (see ideology n. 4); based on a principle or set of unshakeable beliefs," [*] which applies in the case of your communists and nazis, and another sense in which ideological means, "2. Occupied with or motivated by an idea or ideas, esp. of a visionary kind; speculative, idealistic. Cf.," [*] which is the type of ideological which science is. You're not wrong in saying that mixing ideological influences of the first type is bad, but you are wrong in denying that science qualifies in the second sense in which it relates to an idea or ideas about how to collect evidence and construct supportive arguments for one's conclusions. So, as noted previously, you're just abusing language by insisting that a word be applied in only one sense to the exclusion of other senses which are equally valid. I don't know that there's a name for that, but it is closely related to equivocation in which one manipulates in which sense a word is used in an illegitimate way. Such contortions of logic are the end result of you mixing your ideological views on science (in the sense of being unshakeable beliefs) with the less problematic ideological views of science in which it, as an idea about ideal processes of discovery aimed at revealing truth, is merely a tool embraced by people generally.

[*] Definitions taken from the Oxford English Dictionary.