Thanks, Mr. Siegel. I am a person of faith, yet of science, too. In college I majored in computer science; part of this was doing hundreds of mathematical proofs and devising and running countless experiments.It involved coding knowledge into databases, and building systems which would produce inferences from that knowledge. I also took a lot of philosophy and theology, in which there was a surprising amount of intellectual rigor involved: setting definitions, positing premises, making conclusions, then testing those conclusions for consistency with various other facts, assumptions, and conclusions, including those of the hard sciences. In all of this, there was an all-permeating sense of the degree to which any of the things posited, concluded, or constructed represented “reality”.
While I would agree that calling science “faith based” is overstating things, there are certain things which science must take for granted and other things which it can have no concept of. Meanwhile, there are highly visible people who make science and the scientific method the be-all and end-all of knowledge. I think it is this state of affairs which provokes people to say that science has “faith” components. This does not demean science, but sets out its limitations and provides clarity about what scientists can and cannot discover.