With respect to all parties concerned: Faith is not strictly a theological tenant. People with faith accept scientific evidence. Both strive through their philosophies. This issue may have had the potential to be broken down to one camp or the other in the past, but hardly deserves a new necromancy.
One who adopts a scientific point of view can't claim a lack of faith in the process of empiricism: see:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empiricism Or, it's anti-hypothesis.
All empirical tenants and conclusions, must be, by definition falsifiable. And, even if accepted, re-falsifiable (which is a stupid way of saying, Ain't nobody gots all the answers).
What pisses off people who subscribe to empirical methods is that some people hold on to philosophical dogma too long. People who exist within religious domains of any reasonable religion have the right to question: see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas
Both spheres of influence could use an enema, but the race is not close at this time. If you went back as far as Newton, you would see some experimental amalgamation on his part. Empirical methodology, however, is more consistent and deserves proper examination, or would anybody like to exist in a universe of much wrong and pain again.
I'm not willing to let the empiricists off without a spanking (myself included): No philosophic perspective can exist without due consideration to the voices that say yes or no.
However, though my view may be without absolute evidence, my conclusions are without prejudice and in keeping with the evidence thus far provided.