History has shown that what is accepted as scientific fact during one era is likely to be proven false by scientists of the next era.

This is a point often brought up. Every previous era thought they understood the way the world works, and every previous era got things terribly, terribly wrong -- the Greeks thought the sun revolved around the Earth; Newton believed time was absolute. How, then, can we possibly expect anything that current science tells us to be true at all?

What is always neglected is the other side: the knowledge that has remained with us, in practical terms, often far outweighs the knowledge discovered since. The Greeks knew the Earth was spherical, and the Earth remains spherical, for the most part. It is only an incidental detail that its spin makes the equator bulge outward into oblate spheroidhood.

Almost every predominant theory of the world is not discarded entirely after its age has passed, but contained within the next theory as a special case. Before Newton, it was thought that objects have a fundamental desire to be at rest, and that if set into motion they would, for that reason, gradually return to that state. Newton considered that picture of the world, that explanation of the why, to be false, clearly false, in all circumstances. But the prediction that that picture gave -- and this is the fundamental part of the theory, the only part that matters to Science -- remains true for everyday circumstances. Roll a ball along a table, and unless you have some frictionless surface available, it will slow and then stop, every single time.

Similarly, the planetary motions explained by Kepler remain largely intact. The picture of the world that Einstein's theory of relativity gave may have overturned the Newtonian world-picture everywhere, in every circumstance, but its description of events only overturns Newton's in relatively exotic situations (satellites experience measurable time dilation, buses do not; schoolchildren are still taught that Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction, despite quantum mechanics), and that is all that science is really concerned with.

Certainly, I do not advocate blind faith in anything at all. But as mollusc pointed out, science is not a picture of the world's workings (except in the sense that it discards solipsism, etc.) but a methodology used to make predictions. That's it. It's hard to see how blind faith in such a rarefied thing is even possible, and if it is, it's hard to see how it could possibly be as damaging as blind faith in religion.

With regard to mollusc's point about the Greeks not being scientsts -- true enough; Aristotle, for example, asserted that men had more teeth than women, and despite being married several times never thought to check. Still, the ideas of the greeks, and, indeed, of all nonscientists, the commonsense theories ingrained in the human mind or developed as children, provide good examples of the worldview-to-special-case transition.