I honestly don't see how you can bend science, or to put put another way bend established scientific fact.
Water boils at sea level at 100°C
Objects on earth fall at 9.81ms/s
how can you actually bend these facts ?
Well, you can't easily - these are the bare facts I was talking about. These are useful facts, the accuracy of which can be ascertained by repeated experimentation; this is the kind of science that (once engineers get involved) leads to useful improvements in technology.
The use of the word faith is a bit bizarre, it kind of implies a belief in something.
Not at all; now we come to Bran's second reply; he believes that Charles Darwin's ideas have been _proved_ correct by due scientific process.
This is nothing like true - if anything, real science has uncovered unimaginable levels of complexity in the most basic building blocks of life which make the gaping holes Darwin himself saw in his theory look like microscopic pinpricks. And yet... lots of otherwise rational scientists believe in his basic theory - why? Because it's their worldview (religion.) They don't want to accept anything as existing that they cannot measure, and so they _believe_ that what exists must have come by plain statistical chance from what already existed (even if we know scientifically that there must actually have been a beginning to all material things.)
It doesn't matter that rational scientific and statistical analysis of the issue says that it is impossible on a range of different levels; they will insist that because life exists as we know it, the statistics are wrong! It's circular reasoning based on the worldview (=faith) through which they interpret everything they see and measure.
Their stories on how we came to be, and on how life around us will continue to develop are NOT facts at all; they're opinions, theories, philosophy.
EVERYBODY has a framework through which they interpret the actual facts which they find, whether they realise it or not. Real science is and will always be simply unable to answer a lot of the very big questions in life and scientists are at best fallible human beings with their own agendas and prejudices.
(I have worked in academia and had my own research published in the past, so I'm not just spouting 3rd hand "knowledge" here - I'm pleased to say it was real science which was and is open to proof or disproof through repeated experimentation