Holy? No.
Important? yes.
Science is about acquiring knowledge, by studying the mechanism of the natural world, whether that be physics, chemistry, biology or mathematics, or any combination of the above, depending on the fields of studying.
And it is done so, without any divine being(s).
Science find answers through (A) verification - thus evidences and testing - through (B) proof - thus mathematical equations or mathematical models, like in theoretical physics.
(A) or evidences/tests are better than (B) proof.
Why is evidence-based science or testable science better than theoretical ones?
There are always maths in experimental science, but if you require verification, then evidences or tests (experiments), would provide real-world results that will either show the theory to be objectively TRUE or FALSE.
Theoretical physics, like superstring theory rely solely on mathematical proof (models and equations), which are currently untestable. And how many different variations of superstring theories are currently out there? Half dozen? A dozen? So which one is right? We don't know, because none of them can be tested.
Einstein's Relativity used to be theoretical, until scientists were able to test it.
Science is just a tool used by man, in order to understand the natural world (biology, geology, etc) and man-made world (man-made, like computers, mobile phones, TVs, microwave oven, etc) and how to make use of these knowledge (application).
With science, you would follow the process of (A) formulating explanation and prediction (thus hypothesis), then (B) you test the hypothesis...and then you test it again, and again, and you get other scientists (peer review) to independently test the hypothesis, (C) analyse the test results, (D) before making the conclusion that either the hypothesis failed in the test or verified that it is true.
The majority of new hypothesis failed for any number of reasons (eg. it is not testable, it fail in the tests, or the results were inconclusive, etc).
So no, science is not holy.
