Faith and sight are opposites, like light and darkness, good and evil. When you have one you don't need the other, and vice versa. We also use them as concepts in a unified theory of everything.
The science vs. faith debate is smoke and mirrors because the words "science" and "faith" are poorly understood. The problem is that the words, as used, have definitions which don't fit the usage.
The story of Babylon (Babel) shows us that having a universal language is dangerous. It gives us the power to do things which would be otherwise impossible. Guess what? Math is a universal language. Go figure.
Theoretical and empirical are opposites, like dark and light. Empirical means verified by direct observation. Theoretical can't be seen, it's what we hope for, which is why we became a scientist.
There were two horses on Noah’s ark but now there are at least seven species in genus Equus. That's speciation or macro-evolution. It's not a problem because the process of evolution has a scriptural context.
Dark matter can't be detected. That's because it doesn't exist. That doesn't matter, people are still looking for it. It's an example of how we use faith in science.
You don't need to have faith in something if you can see it. Faith is needed when we can't see. However, that has nothing to do with evidence. As such, faith is believing in what you can't see because of evidence.
Current popular science (SciPop) propaganda is that "faith is belief without evidence." However we all have the same evidence (Matty's razor) so the meme fails as a definition of faith.
A lot of people are involved in the science vs. faith debate. This is rather ironic since what they refer to as "science" is a sad parody called mainstream science (SciPop) which requires just as much faith as any religion does.
Does relativity refute the idea of an absolute frame of reference? No. Relativity is an inductive rationalization of the premise that there isn't one, but it's derived from an incorrect theory of gravity.