Sorry, that is not the case. As part of my graduate schooling I studied fossil man, evolution, human races, osteology and a lot of related subjects -- for six years.
These fields rely on data and theory, not faith. We studied real subjects and real data, as well as the history of these fields. We saw how data increased and theory improved over the decades. Nowhere were we asked to believe in some static "trvth" that was obtained by revelation. That is where faith would have come in. That was not a part of our studies.
To claim that science relies on faith is both incorrect and shows an ignorance of science and how it works. And it shows a disdain for science that is becoming increasingly common in some circles. Attempting to destroy science is not exactly productive, as science is our main weapon against ignorance and starvation and a host of other ills.
Nobody is trying to destroy science. We just want to see it used for what it's meant to be used for. Not as a weapon used to bludgeon those who disagree with you into submission forcing them to accept and follow your world view, not as a tool used to advance your political and religious ideology.
Science cannot deal with the more critical issues of morals, without which society ceases to function.
Intellect does not equal morals.
We have had too many examples of intellectualism without morals in recent history to be comfortable with that thought.