I don't think so. I think it's the basis of your entire argument.
No. It is a failure on your part to comprehend the relationship between faith and facts. Is it not you who said "I trust my own understanding of physics?". But I should expect as much from those who fail to distinguish between immutable fact and reasonable conjecture and then set themselves up as preachers in the classroom.
If you refuse to acquaint yourself with facts, and in fact ignore or reject them when presented, of course you will be unable to distinguish between facts and conjecture. And if you can't distinguish between faith and facts, of course you won't be able to tell the difference between a teacher and a preacher. And that is your goal; to be able to claim that they are indistinguishable.
Argumentum ad stupidum. The only way you can sustain it is by clinging to your ignorance, or feigned ignorance. You're clearly not stupid; you write literately, make no or very few spelling and grammatical errors, and don't seem particularly ill-informed, except about science. I don't believe ignorance could be that selective. Yours is an assumed and false position.
We are being led by a nose ring here IMHO.
I am done with my grade school science class on this thread.
From my standpoint as an observer, until a proposition is verified personally it remains a proposition that I must accede to by faith. There are many scientific propositions and immutable facts to which I have acceded, among them the current speed of light, the law of gravity, human flight, etc. Some of them I have witnessed directly.
If I tell you what is the speed of light, I am telling you what I believe. When RA tells me the speed of light, he is telling me what he knows and accepts as immutable fact. I can accept that because the data is operable and available in the present day. Furthermore, I trust he has gathered the knowledge accurately, and shared it without distortion. Since I have not gathered the knowledge and tested it myself, I am relying upon the testimony of someone else. What shame is in that?
So too, when a text that has been handed down for hundreds of generations makes the proposition that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," I accede to that proposition not only because of its wide acceptance, but also because it makes sense to attribute all the information available to my reason and senses (not to mention my reason and senses themselves) to an agent of intelligent design. What shame is in that?
Sound bite of the week, if not the month, and maybe the whole damned year. Well done.