Mr. King,
     I would like to point out two errors in one of your statements quoted in a news story on the Large Hadron Collider.  In it you stated, "I believe that much of the public reaction to the LHC is grounded in a kind of ignorance that might be called 'Faith-Based Science,' or F-BS for short."  I assume that you meant to tie in this ignorance with the same "ignorance" that typifies creationists.  In other words, your statement is fairly straightforward jab at creationists, especially Christians.
     First, it is intriguing that you claim that those who fear the LHC are people of faith, when in fact you know full well that the doomsday-theorists (primarily Walter Wagner and Luis Sancho) have in no way tied their scare campaign to religion.  Indeed, they are probably secularists.  Bible-believing Christians would have no fear concerning an early demise for Earth seeing as the Bible teaches that God will destroy the earth, not a supercollider (2 Pet. 3:10).
     Second, and more importantly, is the irony of your insinuation that faith is ignorance and science is knowledge.  I gather from this that you have neither studied the biblical view of faith nor philosophy of science.
     The Bible presents faith as knowledge: a justified belief in who God is and what He has done in history (1 Cor. 15:13-14).  Indeed, revelation is the foundation of knowledge (Prov. 1:7, Col. 2:3, 1 Sam. 2:3), because all true propositions must be grounded in an eternal, omniscient mind.  Consequently, to know a proposition is to simply think God's thoughts after Him (to paraphrase Kepler).  Biblical propositions are justifiable (and therefore knowledge) because they were revealed to us by a God who cannot lie (Heb. 6:13-19, John 8:13-15, 17:17).
     Science, on the other hand, can never furnish man with knowledge.  As any philosopher of science knows, the scientific method utilizes induction.  Inductive inferences always assert the consequent.  Asserting the consequent, of course, is a formal fallacy.  Inferences obtained through science are useful only because we presuppose the uniformity of nature.  We can only justify such a presupposition through scripture, however, because we know that an orderly God created and maintains the universe in an orderly fashion (Gen. 8:22, Col. 1:15-17).  Hence science actually presupposes the truth of Christianity.  The only intellectually-consistent scientists, therefore, are those with faith in scripture.
     Science does not grant us knowledge, only rational inferences.  Knowledge by definition is justified, true belief.  Since rational inferences are unjustifiable, they cannot count as knowledge.  To think otherwise is to crucify logic.  You see, then, the astonishing naiveté of building an epistemology on science—and yet many scientists and philosophers since the Enlightenment have done just that (e.g., logical positivism).
     And while the LHC may give us insight into particle physics, it will never validate the Big Bang theory (BBT) as a rational inference.  The BBT requires assumptions about the past that cannot be tested by science.  (Indeed, no historical event can be tested by science, which is one of the reasons why intelligent design is also unscientific.)  These assumptions are unjustified opinion at best, and so is the BBT.  Asserting that evidence like the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation supports the BBT only begs the question because such evidence must be interpreted through a naturalistic paradigm beforehand.  Consequently, scientific evidence may show that a scientific model is consistent but it cannot show that it is true.
     In conclusion, Mr. King, I hope you can see that the exact opposite of your statement is true: faith is knowledge, and the belief that science is knowledge is ignorance.

Sincerely,
Keith
Mechanical Engineer