No. We rely upon evidence and theories are built and tested to explain the totality of that evidence.
The Word of God cannot be disproved.
Would that this were so, but it's not.
Both these (and about a half dozen more) were written by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, who started his journey as a born-again Christian seeking the original and true Word of God. Start with the first book above as it lays out that search in the first chapter, and is written for the layman. The other work is definitely written for the scholar, but is still worth the read.
Man's word has often been disproved.
Science is self-correcting (the scientific method) whereas religion cannot, by its very nature, be so. However, what many lay persons see as "disproved" is more often than not simply a refinement in light of new data. For instance, the age of the Earth -- geologists had already figured out the Earth to be on the order of at least millions of years old by the end of the 18th century, based on nothing more than the layers in the geological record. As dating methods became more precise that number changed and became more refined. It wasn't until someone hit upon the idea of dating (by various methods) meteorites (the leftovers from the beginning of the Solar System), that the age of the Earth was finally pegged at some 4.5 billion years. Dating of moon rocks and additional meteorites have only confirmed this age. The same general ideas have been applied to other sciences, including evolutionary biology. Each new piece of evidence is a test of a theory, and Darwin's theory has proven to be quite robust in light of new evidence discovered over the past 150 years.
RE: your comments that the Word of God can be disproved, men do make mistakes, but God's Word is infallible.
We could throw links supporting our positions at one another until doomsday. Suffice to say that we each choose to believe what we will.
RE: the matter of each of us relying on faith, these excerpts pretty much express my opinion...
"1. No view, dealing strictly with the concept of origins (which is beyond the purview of empirical investigation) can be classified as “science.” Science is based upon observation, experimentation, etc. From the nature of the case, that which cannot be examined and tested cannot be called “science” legitimately.
But don’t take my word for it. Listen to the testimony of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala (University of California – Irvine), a supporter of the N.C.S.E., whose name is listed on their letterhead: “A hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience….A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science” (American Scientist, Nov/Dec, 1974, p. 700; emp. WJ). Evolution, therefore, is not science!"
"2. Many skeptics have conceded that the ideology of “evolution” is very much a faith matter. Dr. Robert Jastrow, Professor of Astronomy and Geology at Columbia University (an agnostic), in discussing the evolutionary view of the spontaneous origin of life on earth has said this: “The [evolutionary view of life’s origin] is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1977, p. 52; emp. WJ). Dr. Louis More of Princeton wrote: “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone…” (The Dogma of Evolution, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1925, p. 160; emp. WJ)."
"Away,then, with this arrogant drivel that evolution is “science,” while belief in creation is just “superstition.”
"Here is an interesting question: Why is it considered “religious” dogma to teach there was a “creation” (which implies a Creator), and yet it is viewed as “science” to assert there was not a “creation” or a “Creator.” If one is a religious view, then why isn’t the other – merely in a negative format? Does logical consistency mean nothing to these people?" (Wayne Jackson @ Christian Courier)
I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED
By: Daniel W. Whittle
I know not why God’s wondrous grace
To me He hath made known,
Nor why, unworthy, Christ in love
Redeemed me for His own.
But I know Whom I have believèd,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.
I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing us of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word,
Creating faith in Him.
But I know Whom I have believèd,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.
I know not what of good or ill
May be reserved for me,
Of weary ways or golden days,
Before His face I see.
But I know Whom I have believèd,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.
I know not when my Lord may come,
At night or noonday fair,
Nor if I walk the vale with Him,
Or meet Him in the air.
But I know Whom I have believèd,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.