I think that accepting something because one has testable evidence, does not take faith. Religious faith is not the same as the acceptance that some have in the scientific method. Having confidence in the scientific method does not require blind faith, because the method itself demands skeptism and accepting the possiblity that we could be wrong.
Now I could display faith by asserting that humankind will use scientific advances to benefit the human family. But that would indeed be faith, and a dismissal of all evidence to the contrary. Scientific advances will be used for both beneficial and nonbenificial things---some quite wonderful and some quite brutal---some important and some mundane.
But it is not about faith. A theory is always up for falsification. Faith is not open to falsification. It's very nature requires one to be biased.
That is not necessarily a weakness. We need to have faith in some things to have some peace. Faith in people or institutions--to a degree. But when it becomes a weakness is when evidence proves our faith is misguided, and we are unable to let go long enough to investigate. A parent that has faith that their child will do right, may ignore the borrowed money, drug use, misdemeanors to hold on to that faith.
I knew a woman like this. She was an inlaw, and we had an honest relationship. She told me one day, with so much faith, that her boys were so good hearted and always out to do their best by people. True to my caustic humor I replied, "And yet, they keep going to jail." She smacked me. Good enough. But her faith was misplaced. Evidence showed that her boys were NOT all that interested in doing right by people. Now she may have done a brain dance and reasoned that because they never physically hurt anyone, that made them 'good hearted'. And yet there are many ways to hurt a person. Stealing from them, conning them, lying to them all cause damage. So by her narrow definition, perhaps they were good hearted, but their victims may have a very different opinion.
I do not have 'faith' in science. I accept the scientific method. Which means I accept, at this moment, that what we know now is less than we will know in the future, but I am confident that every discovery brings us somewhat closer to the truth----but truth in science? Well since nothing moves beyond theory, there may not be such a thing. But there are some things that are no longer questioned because the evidence is astounding. We don't question if we have gravity, cuz we are all sticking to the earth. We don't question whether evolution happens, cuz the evidence screams. The earth is a spere, we have pictures.
The details, however, are always up or question and challenge. It is not a lack of faith to question conclusions---but it is the scientific method. The two are at opposite polls.
nc