The thing is, faith of all flavors have lasted, with the general beliefs unchanged through millenia. Science can only speak tentatively, and stuff is being proven and disproven all the time. Who knows? Someday we may find out that saying blood pumps from the heart will be like saying ants come from rocks. Farfetched? I sure think so, but you really can't tell with the way science works. I'd like to elaborate more but for once I'm friggin tired. More good stuff can be expected by saturday.
A couple of points on this paragraph.
1) What, to some, appears as a strength of a faith-based approach is a weakness in the mind of others. That is the total inability of it to change over time. However, that is a rather harsh view of it. In fact, the faith based approach has, in general, changed over time. In the mind of the majority, God no longer controls the sun in it's daily arc and doesn't meddle on a minute by minute basis with events here. To me that is a significant change. The fact that a few haven't kept up doesn't make it less true.
2)The "tentativeness" of science can be carried too far, IMHO. As a theory is worked out over decades it does become less tentative. We can expect changes but not a complete erasure of many existing theories, existing results will hold is my expectation.
Examples of this is Newton's theory of gravitation and dynamics. It was demonstrated to be "wrong" and the general and special theory of relativity replace them. However, they aren't totaly gone. They are very useful for a wide range of "normal" conditions.
I expect that for some theories this will be the type of change we might expect. A "modification" rather than a replacement of the old with new. I think the same type of modification (refinement?) has already been undergone by the ToE of Darwin.
So the comment about things being "disproven" should take this into consideration. Newton was completely and utterly "disproven" but that doesn't mean apples fall up or that most of what his theory predicts is not perfectly useful and right enough for many, many cases.
But as for the open heart surgury thing, don't forget that creationists feel the same way about people who say God is a myth
I think most of us can understand the feelings about this. And I hope most of the 'unbelievers' can remember not to worry about those who take God on faith alone. The argument is supposed to be over evidence not what one chooses to believe or not believe on faith alone.
However, there is a difference in one who choose not to take something on faith and one who chooses to ignore real data and who employs obviously flawed logic. It may be that the annoyance is with the method used to arrive at the conclusion more than the conclusion itself.
(All that said, there are such things as militant athiests who like to attack for very personal reasons. Just let it go when you encounter that.)