SBC thanks, I'm kind of mecurial about it.
So I'll try an analogy of how we scientists really work.
Richard Feynman used a Chess analogy. He said scientists were observing a chess game and trying to guess the rules - how kings move, how bishops move etc just from observation. We might predict that rooks move unlimited spaces but only in a horizontal or vertical direction. We predict moves and everything is fine till the player castles. Then our theories on rooks looks pretty poor and we either have to amend our theory or chuck it aside for a new one.
I prefer maps. We can make measurements of roads, mountains, lakes etc and try to put them together in a map that describes the relationship of all the features to each other. We test the maps by getting the car and driving where we want by the map. We judge the quality of the map by how well it helps us get where we want to go. If the map is missing roads, or has roads where there are none, then we likely will not use that map much and will make or get another one. If a theory is like a map, its utility is solely in its ability to help us get where we want to go and how well it predicts.
Now, we have and use all sorts of different maps for different purposes. A map of the United States on the wall is good for one thing but likely not for getting us to the party Saturday night. A road map may be good for getting us to Yellowstone, but not so good for hiking it. So with scientific theories. Newton's theory of gravitation is like a world map, good as a starting point and the underlying science, but you need a more precise theory for landing on the moon. So we have many different theories that are related to each other and should be in basic agreement but are used for different purposes.
If we find a mistake in the map, we may simply put a note on it and still use it. If we find lots of mistakes, we may make a new one. Or if we find some basic fundamental flaw we may revise all of the maps related to that area. So with theories. Newton's gravity was refined again and again with no reason to suspect a fundamental flaw. Later measurements indicated that while it works on many levels it needs refinement and so Einstein and others proposed new theories that are better...for now.
I like maps as an analogy to remind myself the map is not the territory. I love maps, but they are no substitute for the real thing. I admire theories, but its experience that counts.
So, for a practicing scientist, faith has really nothing to do with his or her work. We propose theories, test them, refine the theories, then make things like computers, cell phones, liquid crystal displays (in color no less).
