Of course, there is no scientific "faith", since to become a faith, science must be elevated from methodological to philosophical naturalism, and philosophical naturalism, by definition, is not science, it's religion.
Can I say that more simply?
Science is intended to be a box of tools, highly useful in building or repairing our material needs -- that's methodological naturalism.
But if we set our box of tools up on some alter, and bow down to worship it, that does not increase the utility of those tools, and makes us into idiots -- that's philosophical naturalism.
Nor does science ever use the term "tangible proof" relating to hypotheses and theories.
Instead, hypotheses are "confirmed" according to their ability to make strong predictions and withstand falsifiable tests.
Since basic evolution hypotheses have passed these tests many times, they are considered "confirmed theories".
And scientists do not have "faith" in a theory.
Instead, like other tools in their tool-box, scientists use the theory in every-day work, until it produces some result they didn't expect.
Then they sit down, scratch their heads, and begin work on some new hypothesis to explain their unexpected results.
That's what science is all about.
I and most Creationists have no problem with “ science” it’s the evolutionists lies about creation that is an offence to us. I have three or four different books showing that The religion on Darwin is not only false but impossible I will go so far as to say that anyone that believes that NOTHING created something and the human eyeball was the work of chance is more than stupid. Yet some so called Scientist would rather believe that than admit to a super natural Creator.