I thought faith was belief without or independent of evidence. Science is about discovering pattens consistent with evidence. The epistemology of science is philosophical.
You can have faith in the underlying 'truthfulness' of science, however there are also strong philosophical reasons to support it. Science doesn't require faith after that point.
I think what this post is saying is that although in principle everything that is known by science can be derived from testable and observable aspects of the world, the lay person is not in a position to undertake those tests directly, so it then becomes a different matter as to how they assign accuracy to "science" as a way of describing the world.
I think faith is an inappropriate phrase to use here, as there can be direct evidence that trusting a scientific description of the world is more consistent with the real world than any religion is. Ultimately we are have a discussion about science when it's actually a discussion about philosophy and epistemology.

So any 'cock' references w.r.t.(cock male chicken) of possible ('cock' and 'hen') chicken states, might land me in hot, if not exotic water?

The issue is not whether a Christian can be logical or reasonable.
The question is can a Christian be logical and reasonable when the data conflicts with their beliefs.

Bear in mind there is the deep metaphor about the "end of days" that I assume Christians subscribe to as a direct by-product of believing the rest of the tenants of their faith.
On the face of it they look forward to the second coming of Christ which includes the destruction of the planet.
There are certainly extremists who are quiet happy to help bring this forward, by recreating the temple in Jerusalem for instance. Alternatively they expect to simply disappear when the rapture happens.
The biggest issue with Christianity and the environmental well being of the planet is that Christians believe they get to have a completely independent existence after they die, one in which this corrupt earth has no part.
Why should they worry in the least about this planet in that context?

I understand the US government wanting to protect itself from Wikileaks and send a message to any others that it will cost them. What worries me is that from here (Australia) it appears that a large proportion of the american people think what Wikileaks is doing is unjustifiably bad. Is that really the case or is it just media hype?

Some narrow minded subset of the whole getting to decide what we can think about even in fantasy? And what the hell triggers this?? Did Amazon get a special request from the pope or something? Perhaps they need to invent something that means only the owners can read stories in the privacy of their own homes.... *shakes head in disgust*