We know for a fact that the current atomic model is false. We just haven't figured out a better one yet. The first sentence is a demonstration of how people are not blindly following the current atomic model, but applying it when it works, and admitting its faults.

Remember your beginning algebra class? How about those postulates you learned? Take, for example, the Line Postulate, which states that "For every two different points there is exactly one line that contains both points." This is something that you and I believe, but it is not proven. Instead, your math textbook probably said that it was a postulate because it is a fundamental part of Euclidean geometry, but it is not possible to prove. They asked you to believe that it is true, but to understand that it is not a universal law. (Note that in a non-Euclidean geometry, you can sometimes find two distinct lines through two distinct points.)

I know that I was introduced to the scientific method as a way of describing the world around us. These theories and equations come up because they are of practical value to us. My chemistry teacher taught us the Bohr model of an atom, and we believed that it was true because it made sense. Then he proceeded to teach us a model that was an even better representation of an atom, because it worked for atoms other than hydrogen. The point he made was that even the modern quantum model of an atom is not necessarily correct, and it is likely to be replaced by the discovery of a new model sometime soon, but it works, damnit! (Those were his exact words, I believe.)

I don't have blind faith in science, I have a rational belief in it.

Update after that of nocodeforparanoia: Yeah, but maybe you should write the Blind faith in anything is just as bad as blind faith in anything else. Oh, and btw, I know people who actually do have a blind faith in science, so your point is certainly valid.