Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Moon Ronin]

Carbon Dating, Gravity, and far more precepts than you can name FAR outweigh the 3 theories you've brought up prove that it's not a faith of belief but something based on fact and repeatable experiments. You've even failed to mention that Science still labels them Theories aka Unproven unlike fully proven things like Gravity, and while many believe in the Big Bang if the evidence comes out against it it'll be thrown out. The same cannot be said for the religions of the Bible and especially the more fundamentalist believers.

The fact that many have no response but to label Science a faith in order to discount it since it's too hard to argue against otherwise is a sad fact that is bringing us down as a species, and for proof I provide the American GoP.

Nope, not even close. Those are sound scientific theories that work according to our present knowledge, but they are untested and not accepted. They are theories that need evidence to show whether they are actually true or not. Scientist do not dogmatically say, String Theory is true no matter what comes up. They say the math works, but lets see if it is a predictive model. This is how they recently found the Higgs boson, or proved Relativity to be right.

Scientist do not say, "I have no proof, I just have faith". It is the opposite. They need objective confirmation.

Science is nothing like religious dogma and I hate this fallacy.

The important distintion is that with regards to science, it's a faith in the idea that eventually the big questions will be answered through a rigourous process of experimentation and verification of results. Science is the evolution of factual knowledge.
Religion is a constant re-hashing of existing information with no actual proof in an effort to prop up already held beliefs. It's static. There is no evolution of ideas, in fact expansive reinterpretation is frowned upon.

The good think about science is it doesn't depend on some one scientist somewhere agreeing or disagreeing. It is a collective process that comes to conclusions based on consensus formed by the evidence. Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics, but even he could not stop it's validity being accepted.

I work in the science field... One the title of Theory does not mean unproven (though it is argument most give by those of a religious nature against them), Theories do not grow up to become Laws they explain them. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explains the Law of Gravity, but there will not be a law of General Relativity. The title of Theory goes to something that hasn't been disproven, if a Theory is disproven it will be replaced. The Many-World Theory and String Theory can not be disproven only because we lack the ability and understanding to do so it may belong more in the province of scientific philosophy and regain the title of Interpretation and not Theory. Giving them the title of Theory brings down the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and so on for those such as religious groups to point and say that they are just "Theories".

Most equate the idea of religious belief system as something of the dogmatic structure of the abrahamic religions but they are not the only example have religions they are just the most dominate ones. The idea of faith and belief does not require a ridged dogma to exist.

I'm not saying that physicist worship at the Temple of the String or read for the Book of Multiple Earths on a pilgrimage to Copenhagen while singing hymns to Bohm . But the ones that do work in that field have to have some kind of belief or faith when applying them as theory as they have not been through the scientific vetting process and believe their outcome has a scientific barring if it cannot be challenged.