Doesn't it take more faith to believe science than to believe the Bible?

I was recently asked some questions, often framed as challenges or statements of faith, which I have received numerous times and are commonly heard by those without faith. While theists have some similar answers, many feel the need to use their faith to endorse science, which I do not. Few conversations or social situations allow me to satisfactorily address these statements, as it can be difficult or impossible to determine someone's prior knowledge or openness to discussion. The evidence for various scientific theories are fairly well covered in print, so I may post about them later, but simply providing the evidence is rarely enough as there is often more than ignorance of the science at work. Lack of knowledge is easy to fix, but ideological opposition is extremely difficult. For example, two thirds of Americans surveyed stated that they would ignore scientific evidence which disproves a religious belief of theirs.

"Doesn't it take more faith to believe science than to believe the Bible?"

If faith is believing in something in the absence of convincing evidence or reason, then the general answer is NO: science requires no faith at all, since it is built upon reason and evidence alone. For someone who knows little about the science involved in origins and cosmology, and who lives in a community where acceptance of scientific consensus on those issues is looked down upon, then yes, it would take great faith. Coming from people for whom faith is a virtue, it's an ironic claim that science is bad if it requires faith.

This is a misunderstanding of science, both as a discipline and as a body of knowledge. The scientific method involves observation, forming a hypothesis, prediction, testing, and reformulation. Results must be shared openly for others to critique and attempt to replicate. It is designed to get us as close as possible to the truth. Skepticism is built right in as the typical scientific response to any claim, and overturning an orthodoxy is a scientist's lifelong dream. Good hypotheses must survive a baptism of fire to earn status as a theory; when all scientists in one field, spanning many countries, cultures, and even religions agree on an idea, it's something to take very seriously. This makes it ridiculous and the height of ignorance to mistake consensus for conspiracy. The fact is that science works by being the opposite of faith, and it is the best method we have for determining truth. It will not and cannot answer every question and is limited by our ability and willingness to use it well, but it has answered millions of questions with incredible accuracy, so opinions acquired through blind faith are not equal.

A few people have said to me that they can't imagine how a million-pound airplane like the Airbus A380 gets off the ground. I know by context that they still believe that it does work and that there is a natural explanation for it—just that they find it amazing. Despite not having an understanding of things like fluid dynamics, they don't make the argument from ignorance that because they can't imagine how such a huge airplane gets airborne, therefore it must be impossible and moreover, invisible fairies must carry it on their wings (Intelligent Flying, if you will). For every scientific question through history, a natural cause and explanation have been found. Theists have fought against the discovered truth, but generally change their beliefs to fit and eventually have no problem with the lack of supernatural causes in that area. Our origins and that of the universe are no different. Those scientific conclusions are as well-supported as the germ-theory of disease or the heliocentric (sun-centred) model of the solar system.

It's not as if our world does not depend upon their reliability—most people just don't know how. Various parts of biological evolutionary theory have had huge impacts upon medicine, disease research, crop research and pest management, information security, computer programming, engineering, fossil fuel discovery, and are beginning to inform our knowledge of psychology and descriptive ethics. Antibiotic and fungicide/pesticide resistance is the fact of evolution at work. Selective breeding of plants and animals is human manipulation of the same raw material used by natural selection and genetic drift to change the inherited traits of a population over time, which is the definition of (biological) evolution. Much the same is true for the Big Bang theory, plus the kicker for any scientific theory of any worth: it makes testable predictions which could falsify it. Both of these theories have been used to make numerous predictions which have been independently and repeatedly tested. The doubters directly benefit from the application of this knowledge.

The real difference is that most theists find biological evolution and Big Bang cosmology distasteful. I understand the feeling, having once held that belief. But what does that prove? Copernicus was roundly denounced as arrogant for challenging the official doctrine of an Earth-centred universe. There is no shortage of scientists whose work was (sometimes violently) opposed by the religious majority of the time, yet their work is now accepted as true, and the dire warnings of degeneration and divine punishment have not appeared. The insights of those greats have transformed our world and enriched our lives. Some religious people now even claim their faith was responsible for modern science. What reason is there to suspect the future will be any different with respect to evolution and cosmology?

So what's the point? Why do I defend science? Because it works, and because the very people who oppose it are more than willing to enjoy its benefits. Why do I defend these theories? Because they are true.