Of course I see the point you're hoping to make, but it's simply not valid.
First of all, "faith" is a religious term, which refers to spiritual experience, and so has nothing to do with science.
Second, what I'm here calling bedrock assumptions of science are also described as reasonable conclusions, based on overwhelming physical evidence supporting them, plus no confirmed physical evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- seriously falsifying them.
So these are far from "blind faith" assumptions, and since they lead to confirmed predictions, scientists consider them scientifically valid.
That's the way science works.
Of course, your faith is based on a different set of bedrock assumptions -- spiritual assumptions -- which lead to very different conclusions, and the most important point to remember is that such conclusions are totally outside the material realm of natural science.
Therefore, imho, it is not necessarily the case that if one is true the other false.
They could each be largely true, without necessarily falsifying the other.
Think about it...
Any assumption is based on a faith - a belief in the unobserved.
It takes more faith to write God out of science than it does to make the assumption of a creative Mind.
I also see an unacknowledged assumptive belief in uniformitarianism - that the processes we see to day have always been.
Define “science” as you are referencing it: “nothing to do with science”.