One can study the laws of physics and chemistry and "believe" they have a good grasp on how the universe functions. But you still are exercising faith - faith that your methods yielded accurate results, faith that your hypothesis can be extended beyond the sets of experimental data that have so far verified the hypotheses. (Which in physics is risky, as it has already been shown how quickly Newtonian laws break down under various circumstances.)
And religious faith is based on the observation of miracles. Life is a miracle. Science CLAIMS to have an explanation for life, but when that explanation is examined closely, one finds as many unsupported, unobservable and untestable assumptions in that explanation as one finds in a religious explanation.
As is the very set of laws of chemistry and physics upon which you base your observations. One can say the laws that allowed us to develop and to use the periodic table of elements to describe - and predict - the behavior of the elements is "just the way the universe works". Or one can say it is because the laws of chemistry (and physics) were deliberately and carefully designed. Neither view is observable, testable, nor provable. Both views are based on faith in one's own conclusions.
repeatable tests are one of the requirements of the scientific method
would you consider gravity an article of faith
as for theories, if the tests that support a given theory are repeatable with the same result and describe what is commonly designated reality then such a theory may be signpost to guide us through our lives
on the metaphysical level i believe in universal ghea (a universal mind that composes all of the universes) however, i cannot prove it so it is an article of faith
one day each of us will find out if our metaphysical belief is true or not - possibly all faiths are true
Rev Rich