Couldn't the "faith" of scientists be summarized as "effects have causes"
Not all observed phenomena have causes. Radioactive decay is uncaused.
Well, um, no. Causality is an organizing idea, it doesn't really correspond to any tangible natural phenomenon. This is sort of like asserting that english teachers have faith in diagramming sentences, or engineers have faith in karnaugh maps. While it's a true statement, it doesn't really reveal very much of value.
But let me respond to a more sensible version of your argument. The broad claim I presume is being made here is that Darwinism is no more valid than ID, or strict creationism, because both require some measure of faith, rather, I suppose, than mathematically rigorous proof. Yet even the acceptance of formal mathematical proofs is predicated on the acceptance by faith of the basic assumptions upon which proofs operate, and the acceptance, by faith, that the domains of discourse the proofs are intended to address, are accurately mapped.
I will grant that religious faith is altogether more whizbang super-inspiring than secular faiths. Galileo and Einstein will probably never have masses of the faithful converting their enemies to their faith using swords and thumbscrews.