I'd say that you have the right idea but you are comparing it to wrong subject. Rather than science, I'd say religion is a precursor to philosophy. I agree with others about not putting all your eggs in one basket and coming up with such a simplistic explanation for what is doubtless an extremely complex phenomena, but I believe that this comparison is more apt than the one to science.
Science does not cover all aspects of human life. It is limited in the sense that it only addresses what is and not what should be. Furthermore, it limits itself to natural phenomena without necessarily establishing that that is all that exists. Religion, on the other hand, does give explanations about the nature of things and why they are how they are (albeit incorrectly) and in that respect it is similar to science. But it goes beyond that and tells us how we should live our lives, what our goals and values should be, how human societies should be etc. (albeit irrationally) which science does not. Philosophy, on the other hand, does address both. Basically, almost everything covered by religion could conceivably be covered by non-religious philosophy. The distinct advantage of philosophy over religion is that while it depends on reason and - in some cases - evidence to justify its case, religion primarily relies on authority.
Now, it can be argued that philosophy itself is a precursor to science. Science does start from certain philosophical premises - such as existence of a natural world and evidence-based epistemology - currently it can't replace philosophy until it address all the aspects of human life that philosophy does.
Science does not cover all aspects of human life. It is limited in the sense that it only addresses what is and not what should be. Furthermore, it limits itself to natural phenomena without necessarily establishing that that is all that exists. Religion, on the other hand, does give explanations about the nature of things and why they are how they are (albeit incorrectly) and in that respect it is similar to science. But it goes beyond that and tells us how we should live our lives, what our goals and values should be, how human societies should be etc. (albeit irrationally) which science does not. Philosophy, on the other hand, does address both. Basically, almost everything covered by religion could conceivably be covered by non-religious philosophy. The distinct advantage of philosophy over religion is that while it depends on reason and - in some cases - evidence to justify its case, religion primarily relies on authority.
Now, it can be argued that philosophy itself is a precursor to science. Science does start from certain philosophical premises - such as existence of a natural world and evidence-based epistemology - currently it can't replace philosophy until it address all the aspects of human life that philosophy does.
