and it's all essentially blind faith. This just really isn't true. I do think there is a problem with something I'll call "science-ism", which involves people

and it's all essentially blind faith. This just really isn't true. I do think there is a problem with something I'll call "science-ism", which involves people picking and choosing from "science" to support a position or worldview they have, without any critical thinking involved. And to some degree, in some populations this unquestioned adherence to a vaguely claimed result from "science" has replaced a unquestioned andherence to one taken from "religion". But that is not what science is. Science, for all of its flaws and challenges, is simply the best systemic approach for understanding the world around us that human beings have ever come up with. It's not even a close contest. It isn't perfect. It makes errors and is too slow to correct them. There are interesting a meaningful questions it can't really address. It is hard work to do well. But it does work - and has led to most of the large improvements in human lives that we've seen in centuries, at least. And it does that work by being the opposite of what you claim. Understanding that we too have it wrong, that we are building on the work of those who came before, and we are iteratively building a better understanding. Your comment about cosmology is telling. The ideas behind the big bang theory are categorically different than religious cosmology. Consider two things 1) They didn't come from "just" and idea, they were arrived at by trying to understand the implications of the models we saw agreeing very, very well with observed physics. 2) If a better explanation comes along, physics will (begrudgingly perhaps, and slowly perhaps) adopt it and throw out the big bang theory.