Thanks for the clarification Dane. As the discussion here indicates, it seems to come down to definitions. A couple of comments on the faith inherent in science, which is one of the main points of the article by Dr. Guillen. Adam Becker in his book What is Real does a great job of explaining how specific philosophies and ideas, such as by Ernst Mach, greatly influenced the early developers of quantum theories. One might say that the philosophy of positivism, for example, is not faith but philosophy, but sometimes those lines get blurred a bit. When it comes to very specific ideas pursued by many scientists today, I would suggest that they are strong examples of faith. Especially if you define it as defined in Hebrews in the Bible: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

The faith that there is a natural chemical origin to life is an exercise in faith. The faith at work in exclusive Darwinian evolution is another example as there is no evidence that semantic information is generated other than through intelligence. Yet, without evidence, this idea is vigorously pursued. The most obvious example of faith is the multiverse. The ten impossible to find dimensions of M theory at least are supported by some incredibly complex math, but belief in the multiverse is the "substance" of the hope that one does not need to conclude a Designer when confronted with the remarkable facts of fine-tuning.

In my view, Dr. Guillen's point is valid: much of science does depend on faith as defined above.