It isn't. The idiots who are comparing faith of religion to faith in science need to learn the difference between observable and reproducible studies and single mentions of absurd miracles from centuries ago which were never even hinted at since or by anything else. Almost everyone has the potential to get into science, learn the methods and outcomes or pose their own theories and attempt to convince people that they're onto something or reproving something. Since religious texts were written, how many people of "faith" were able to replicate anything from them that were unexplainable through any other means than hoaxing, intervention of a deity or "power" gained directly through religious belief? Science collects, examines and stores information and knowledge to the best of human abilities. Admittendly, not completely foolproof. However, faith does it completely backwards; it gives preposterous ideas and outcomes (termed loosely) without any logical step-by-step towards either, the lack of sufficient proof for any of it missing apparently since they were originally recorded. "Tell someone there's an invisible, almighty being in the sky and they'll believe it on faith. Tell the same people paint is wet and they'll have to touch it to believe it."