> I like the statement I heard, "Most scientific discoveries are not followed
> by a Eureka but with a, "Huh, that's interesting.""   Science is a leap of
> faith on many fronts.

Not at all.  It is a pragmatic system of thought, investigation, analysis
and truth finding.  It is one of many forms and systems of truth finding,
but has a reasonable track record of success, and at least in theory,
a fairly good structure for knowing how much can be known, and then
ferreting out that subset of information.

Faith is belief with or without evidence, even sometimes despite evidence
to the contrary.

I "have faith" that knowing truth is good.  The tool I prefer to use for
finding out truths is "science", because it is the best one I have found.

When sciences teaches me something, such as evolution, I know that this
knowledge has limits, that its veracity is current but not absolute, and I
understand the system of how that information came to be.

When someone teaches creationism, it is not based upon nor arisen from a
scientific or fact based point of view - it arises from a sequence of faith
based concepts - that there is a God, that this God has powers to create,
that this God chose to create our world, and that the method this God chose
to create this world matches the description in the various manuscripts by
various authors that was collected into the Bible.

It's religion.  It is faith.  It is not science.  Until you can prove
otherwise, in which case you have used many of the tools of science (or
sheer persuasion) to show otherwise.

        Tibor/Mark