Degrees of Faith?

Science assumes that there is true knowledge of the natural world to be had. It then seeks to ask the right questions to understand, explain, model, predict and to some extent control that natural world.
Whether it actually reveals the 'truth' of the natural world or just approximates to it in some limited way that our perceptions are capable of comprehending, matters little to all practical intents and purposes. Better models reap better results and are arguably closer to the truth of nature than inferior models. Verisimilitude - The ever increasing closenes to 'the truth' You are treating scientists as if they are some sort of select cult proclaiming truths for the rest of us to follow!!!!
There is nothing to stop anybody asking whatever questions they want. If you think that the wrong ones are being asked then ask the right ones.
All science demands are that the methods of science are used to evaluate any such questions.Science has only ever progressed by the means of pioneers in the field asking the questions that no-one else has - Netwon, Darwin, Galileo, Einstein etc. etc.There is nothing to stop you or I being another of those pioneers but our own inability to ask the right questions and find the subsequent answers!!!!!

If faith is evidence -Is it possible to have faith in something which is actually completely untrue?If so you would presumably class this as 'false evidence'?How is it possible to differentiate between faith that is evidence of the truth and misplaced faith that is false evidence?IF it is not possible to differentiate between faith that is evidence of truth and misplaced faith that is false evidence
THEN to all practical intents and purposes it is useless evidence as it actually provides no clue to what is true and what is not.Is my logic wrong or have I unwittingly setup a straw man of some sort?This idea of faith as evidence seems very circular to me but even if we accept faith as evidence does the above analysis not present a fairly striking problem?

So basically you agree that in the case of faith evidence it is totally impossible to distinguish between misplaced faith leading to false evidence and faith based evidence that points towards the truth?Is there no test that can be done to seperate misplaced faith from faith in the truth? The key difference is that I can objectively corroborate my sense data with other people.
We can independantly analyse the data, test it and come to common and consistent conclusions about reality.
We can independently make predictions based on these conclusions and then test EACH OTHERS predictions to verify that our common conclusions are sound and that our perception of reality is actually consistent with each other.Through mass consistency of perception and detailed independant predictive testing we come to the reasonable conclusion that there is a common physical reality, or physical truth, for all.It is of course theoretically possible that we are all suffering a matrix style mass delusion but it is one on a grand or even cosmic scale. In the case of faith there is ultimately nothing other than internal perception. There is no way to verify that the faith evidence you have is the same as the faith evidence anyone else has.Sure you can discuss it and even conclude that it is the same as someone elses faith evidence.
BUT there is no objective way, predictive or otherwise, to test whether any two people actually have consistent 'faith evidence' on which they are basing their conclusions.Thus accurate conclusions made on 'faith evidence' require only that the INDIVIDUAL be delusional for them to be based on false evidence.Whilst conclusions made on physical evidence require that EVERYONE be delusional for them to be based on false evidence.Therefore - if faith evidence can be classed as evidence at all which I question - it is inferior and infinitely more prone to delusional error than empirical evidence.If this does not actually dismiss your 'faith as evidence' position surely it weakens it to the point of irrelevence?

Who exactly believes this? There is much evidence that those questions which science does claim to be able to answer it answers well. Verification through prediction being the main means.
Prediction is something which is notably lacking from any creationist theories. Empirical in the sense that it is physical evidence which can be analysed and detected using our physical senses.
Confidence because it demonstrably enables us to understand, explain, predict and to some extent manipulate nature.
The science of it is that it follows the the methods of empirical testing. So what are these facts that 'we truly' know that we should base our knowledge on? Any examples of such facts? i suggest you take your own advice. Very little compared to what?
Whether what we know is very litle or not, the rest is what we should aim to know. Science will almost certainly be a significant, but not the the only, means of progressing us towards that aim.