British philosopher AC Grayling tackles Davies' early contention that, "science has its own faith-based belief system." Grayling is as quotable as ever:
"Making well-motivated, evidence-based assumptions that are in turn supported by their efficacy in testing predictions is the very opposite of faith. Faith is commitment to belief in something either in the absence of evidence or in the face of countervailing evidence. It is seen as a theological virtue precisely for this reason, as the story of Doubting Thomas is designed to illustrate. In everyday speech we use the phrase "he took it on faith" to mean "without question, without examining the grounds"; this captures its essence.
. . . .
From article : Commentary: No, science does not 'rest on faith' :
The public and repeatable testing of hypotheses distinguishes science as the most successful form of inquiry ever. Among other things it shows that it is officially not in the business of accepting anything "without question, without examining the grounds". Davies and others who describe science as "ultimately resting on faith" are thus not only wrong but do much irresponsible harm to it thereby."
I subsequently realized that my level of irritation had led to my tackling one aspect of the claim that science relies on faith, but not Davies' tack. I later addressed more directly Davies actual, nevertheless equivocal, point.
I view the nonsense of intelligent [sick] design creationism as falling on the theistic side of deistic apologetics. Deism, which was an early philosophical form of atheism (insofar as it rejected full theism) confines supernatural interference to cosmological first causes. Modern pseudointellectual apologists attempt to monopolize both on the apparent glamor as well as the ineffability of purportedly transcendent first causes.