I'm glad I wasn't brainwashed by science. (Waiting for the rocks being thrown....)
Bad definition of faith, though. He portrayed faith as belief in something without proof. Not true at all. When you drive your car to work you 'trust' that it will get you there (most of the time, if not all of the time). Faith = trust is about the best analogy I know of. Science has the faith/trust that certain inputs will always produce certain outputs based on past experience and known physical laws.
Other than stuff like that, it was entertaining.
Another definition: Faith is belief in something because of the evidence of things unseen. Which, there's bound to be some of these things in science also.
Evidence of things unseen? What do you mean by "things unseen"? If you mean "things that cannot be observed, measured, or otherwise quantified", then no. Since Science is a process/methodology that increases and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world, it by definition has nothing to do with "things unseen".
Science, itself, has no requirement of faith or trust. Its practitioners, being human, regularly do imbue it with such qualities.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badast...hubble-picture/Black holes are "unseen" the same way the wind is. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean you can't observer its effects on the things around it. And falls fully under the definition Peter provided above.