I think you've intentionally misunderstood the point I was making; it takes evidence to begin to prove a scientific theory, I apologize, I thought you had a basic understanding ofthe process.
And here: maybe this will help too:
Faith: "2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust" (I skipped to #2 because #1 was concerning loyalty to an individual).
Science =\= God nor religion
Have a nice day
No, I understood the point you were making. I was demonstrating that it is false.
Let's take an example: science creates a hypothesis or two. One, for example, is that the earth rotates about an axis, and the sun stays in a relatively fixed position with respect to the earth's position. Another is that the sun rotates about the earth, which stays in a relatively fixed position with respect to the sun. Now, we observe the facts, the proof: we observe that the sun appears to rise up in the east each morning. That piece of evidence, that fact, equally proves both theories have merit. Now, we can see that the two theories are diametrically opposed to one another, yet they
both have evidence/proof/fact to back them up.
So, when you suggest that there is "evidence and/or proof that scientific theory is correct", you are
stating the theory is correct. It is not, it is but one of many theories, all with evidence that supports the theories, some of which are diametrically opposed from the other. Having a piece of information support your theory does not prove your theory correct.
Clearly, I understand the process. Clearly, you need to look into it a bit to get what I'm trying to tell you.
****EDIT****: Before you go off on an inaccurate tangent and claim I do not believe the earth revolves on its own axis and that the earth revolves around the sun, I believe those things. My point was process in the absense of other proof, which exists for the sun/earth rotation question. However, I asked for the proof that you claimed existed, the evidence that scientific theory is correct. We both know (or, at least, I give you the credit for knowing) that a theory is no longer a theory when it is "proven" correct. I asked for proof that all of life could come from a single cell - none exists. i asked for proof that a single cell of life could be created from the conditions existing when the theory suggested such a thing occured - none exists. Thus, the scientific theory, to "believe" it, is to believe in something for which there is no proof. That makes it akin to religion.
If you believe in the PROCESS of science, you must allow for religion to be a potential source of an answer. To suggest that science cannot prove religion is to suggest to a caveman that quantum physics has no validity because that caveman cannot prove the thoughts behind quantum physics. It is small minded and bigotted to suggest such a thing. It suggests your unproven (but supported by some evidence) theory is more valid than someone else's unproven (but supported by equally compelling evidence) theory.
Surely you're not that small minded and bigotted, are you?
) The distinction between scientific theory and other (non-scientific) theories is that there does indeed exists evidence beyond the individual however it remains a theory with the lack of verification. Again, sorry...thought this was a given. You know, there are online dictionaries 
I just don't go around claiming my religion to be the on true fact (as some do) nor do I claim that science is as flimsy as faith WRT understanding our world.
