The belief that inert elements could just magically combine themselves to create something as complex as even the simplest single cell life form (a bacteria for example) requires much more faith and imagination than any religion ever could.
Indeed.
A "vacuum" in space is not truly empty, so for the scientific argument, a 100% empty space (something far less than even a vacuum) would have to somehow create a "vacuum" and it's "dark" forms of energy, and that vacuum would then have to go on to create the basic elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium, etc.) and those basic elements would then need to go on and create chemical compounds, and them more complex chemical compounds and then proteins, and on and on.
Talk about faith!
And it gets a little more complicated. After that first speck of 'life' began, it had to start with an ability to reproduce. If it didn't start as self replicating, it could not develop this ability.
ClearCase_guy: "I don't have enough faith to swallow that fairy tale."
This idea gets expressed on any evolution-related thread, and should probably be corrected just as often.
The idea that science, strictly defined, has something to do with "faith" or "belief" or even "truth" -- in a larger sense -- is false.
It doesn't.
Instead, science is really only about one large idea: finding natural explanations for natural processes.
Such explanations may be called "hypothesis" or "theory" or even a mathematical "law", but the fact is they are all just explanations which may be accepted provisionally, temporarily or conditionally, pending falsification by new data or better explanations.
So faith, belief & even truth have nothing to do with it.
Ideally, science itself will abandon any explanation whenever it's falsified, so that cannot be a matter of "faith" or "belief".
Yes, unfortunately, we hear that term, "settled science", all too often, especially in a political context where it absolutely doesn't belong.
But "settled science" should only mean an explanation has been tested often enough, hard enough, long enough and passed every test such that it seems only remotely possible it might ever be falsified.
For an example, consider this: "the Earth is a globe rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun."
In ancient times that was a radical hypothesis, not accepted by many.
In early modern times it became a confirmed theory when great explorers circumnavigated the globe and mathematicians calculated the planets' orbits.
In more recent years it's become an observed fact, with satellites circling and taking photos of the globe.
Yes, you can say the explorers needed "faith" and "belief" in their unproved hypothesis, but scientifically speaking, they were simply risking their own lives to test the hypothesis that the earth is globe-shaped.
Had the tests proved negative, the scientific response would not be, "Oh, dear, now my faith in science is shattered", that's ridiculous.
Instead, the scientific response would be: "Oh, isn't that interesting, let's find a new hypothesis."
Science is all about finding new ideas when old ones don't work so well.
So, as it relates to this thread the important point is: regarding evolution & abiogenesis, there is no "law" of abiogenesis, and not even a strong theory, but only some weakly confirmed hypotheses, a little firmer than wild speculations, but not that much.
So no scientist would put "faith" or "belief" or hold as "true" any such hypotheses.
They are all just interesting ideas some of which may eventually prove confirmable.
As for God's role, I'm certain that however natural-science may eventually try to explain it, it happened as God intended, planned and made it happen.
In my mind, even that's not "faith", it's fact.