If science were "entirely based on faith", then we should see the same phenomenon regarding science as we see with religion: widespread disagreement about everything, even down to very simple and fundamental basics. In religious circles, for example, ask for a definition of "god", and you'll get just about every response you can conceive of and even some that might not have ever occurred to you. God is a spirit, god is flesh and blood, god is the universe itself, I am god, there's only one god, there is more than one god, god is a trinity, god is a unity, god is an alien who lives on Kolob.
In science, however, there is no such widespread disagreement. In fact, there's very little disagreement about anything. For example, there is one theory of mechanics (Newtonian), which everyone uses and agrees is correct, barring relativistic effects, of course. There is one model of the solar system, the heliocentric one.
Aircraft are designed using identical principles everywhere; there is no equivalent to the "Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Muslim theories of aerodynamics".
Perhaps most tellingly, in areas where there is
disagreement amongst scientists, science attempts to resolve the disagreement by investigating further, gathering and analyzing more data. When Shapley argued that the Milky Way was the entirety of the universe, and Curtis countered that he believed that other galaxies existed outside of our own, they didn't try to kill each other, as has been depressingly common in religious disagreements. They each presented the reasons that they believed what they did and why they thought the other one was wrong, and when further data showed that Shapley was wrong, he did not frantically cling to his position. He admitted he had been wrong and moved on.
To say that science is "faith-based" is silly. One of the most basic precepts of science is that you should not believe anything is true unless there is verifiable evidence to support it.