You've been taking on all comers lately so you're primed for a scrap and over-reading my post.
'unwavering faith in science' basically means you believe in science and the evidence it presents. So do I. And when religion runs counter to science it is no longer religion.
As for faith, as I commented before, it must only come at the end of a long and exhaustive testing of available facts and experiences and even then one must be ready to abandon faith at a moments notice when confronted by a better truth.
You have pointed out many things that are both logical and illogical. All the true religions are aspects of a single religion expressed via different cultures, degrees of understanding, social stages and time periods. Religions also have used by dates so there is little merit pointing to the remnants of an old religion and saying it is illogical when in fact it is on its last legs and contaminated through and through by introduced dogma, ritual and superstition.
So your logic fails on this point because you need to see the bigger picture.
As for science and reason. They record and allow an understanding of repeatable constants, cause and effect, the immutable perfection of natural forces. Such unwavering constancy - the perfection of natural laws - the direction and force of evolution to never de-evolve into relative simplistic states suggests that everything is governed by an intangible constant. A first cause and its effect.
Now the religious folk will paint you a picture of what this constant is and they will even give it a name. They have rules for it and know its every though and predestined action. They call it God, Jehovah, Allah, the Creator and a thousand other names.
So my point stands, science describes beautifully the natural world, but it doesn't have the first clue as to why there is such immutable perfection in the laws of nature or why some pre-matter substance became agitated to then become our universe or why a self-replicating RNA has the ability to become every living organism throughout the universe.
To imagine that such things are possible in and of themselves is just another book of Genesis, only this time written by scientists. Be careful of holding the very same intransigent ground as the literal fundamentalists. Not all evidence can be presented neatly bundled. A degree of intuitive understanding is also required.
