Perhaps I can best explain my point, by giving some examples. When something does not fit into current thinking, religions and science take a very different approach. When someone questions a bible (or other religious text) belief, they are called a heretic or a denier. When someone questions a scientific belief, more data is gathered and expert minds ponder over it, create new hypotheses, test those hypotheses until a new understanding emerges that is based on the evidence. Do you not acknowledge that difference?
I do, but I feel you are falling prey to a category error of sorts. Let me explain, if you may.
Science has its domain. It is there to answer questions of a physical nature, more specifically things that can be measured. I think we can agree on that.
Unfortunately there has been an increasingly popular Scientism that masquerades as Science attempting to answer things that it cannot possibly hope to: questions about Faith, Morals, God, Creation. The last point is interesting because this has been smuggled in via theories of evolution (macro, not micro). Still, in the end Science can only go back as far (technically) to a starting point- big bang, singularity etc - and then it can go no further. It cannot see outside of the box that it is in. And this is not a criticism, it's just a fact of the material science has got available to it and its boundaries.
And science continues to shed light on the natural world as it should through tested hypothesis, incidence, revision etc. All well and good.
On the other hand, Faith (and I can only really talk from the Catholic perspective) is a position that a person holds based on an accumulation of evidence of a material, circumstantial and logical basis. (I would like to think of myself as fairly balanced and minimally intelligent, married with children, hold several degrees, teach at University etc. (I say this only insofar as it may show that I can think to a degree). I have also been an atheist for 10 years prior to going to the Catholic Faith. It's been an intellectual journey and shows I am capable of changing positions on strength of evidence and argument.)
Now the Catholic Church holds what is called the deposit of faith: that which was handed down from the last Apostle. Nothing can change about the Life of Christ as has been recorded by them via their evidence: The complete New Testament.
Now the Catholic Faith does not have any issues with Science or anything else for that matter that does not contradict the deposit of faith: evolution no, big bang - not that either.
The Catholic Faith is concerned about the Salvation of Souls. It is concerned with the moral being. It does not worry about electrons: why should it?
You should see surely that the Faith and Sciences should be staying in their own domain, I hope?
Scientific thinking goes through a rugged process of constant questioning and refinement. Religious thinking starts from a premise ("faith") that the God exists and is all knowing and all powerful. Ancient religious writings (e.g. Bible, Koran, Torah) then get quoted to deny the new information that has come to light.
The idea of Faith as I mentioned above is different from how you are using it. It is not blind faith. It is just another step after historical evidence, arguments and the like. Peter Kreeft explains this best....
"Arguments can bring you closer to faith in the same sense that a car can bring you to the sea. The car can't swim; you have to jump in to do that. But you can't jump in from a hundred miles inland. You need a car first to bring you to the point where you can make a leap of faith into the sea. Faith is a leap, but a leap in the light, not in the dark."
(Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith)