Science proves how much we don’t know more often than it comes to irrefutable conclusions .
Seems we must have certain “faith” in science in order to believe its answers.
Take food/diet. What is good for us today is bad for us tommorrow and vise-versa. Margarine for example. Cigarettes.
Sugar substitutes etc...
Also, I’ve noticed much of what science uses as “proof” are simply computer generated models, not reality.
It's not a faith in science, it is a limited religious philosophy of an expanded Copernican Principle. The basics are that there is nothing unique about our universe or our position in the universe, and physical laws are constant and predictable. This allows for both exploration and discovery. Theories can be extrapolated because they are not dependent on unique times or positions, and repetition can be depended on to yield similar results to the point where two separate tests that produce different results are considered to invalidate the theory.
What makes things worse is that many of them believe that all religions, with the possible exception of deism, violate the Copernican Principle to the point that invalidates the most basic processes of science. The target of this charge today is most commonly Christianity, especially with respect to miracles and creation. As a Christian with a scientific understanding (and an engineering degree), I think it is easily understood that God created a consistent universe and made us capable and desirous of discovery, and does not interfere haphazardly as anti-theists like to paint.
Of course that leads to the question of how much God uses nature to produce miracles. If we pray for healing, does God go back in time and change our DNA at conception? Did He make a volcano erupt to cause the plagues of Exodus? Did He make use of evolution to produce the diversity of life on the planet? Should we assume a superimposed Copernican Principle over Christianity in order to perform the task of science? I think many people do.