I.e., just as Einstein expanded on (or "blew the doors off") Newtonian physics, so now science is searching for something new in which to place its faith.
Thats the seed of how this conversation got side-tracked into issues of faith; science doesn't place its 'faith' in anything, and understanding the difference between science and faith is key to even being able to talk about things like unexplained scientific principles.
As someone on my Twitter feed recently said: If you believe in science, you're doing it wrong.
There are, as has already been explained, axioms in any area of formal inquiry, but even these axioms are not statements of faith. You can not use formal arithmetic to derive a formal proof of "a + b = b + a"; in formal arithmetic, this is axiomatic.
You can, however, demonstrate that it is true. You can take a bag of three apples and add two apples to it, and then take a bag of two apples and add three apples to it, and show that in both cases the total number of apples is the same.
Similarly, while you can not derive a formal proof of "a / b != b / a", you can still show that it is true.
Science has no faith. People did not believe Albert Einstein because he was smart; people believed him because the ideas he had (well, some of them, anyway), turned out to be demonstrably true.
Likewise, there are many hypotheses which we do not currently know the truth of: string theory, the existence of the Higgs boson, the existence and properties of dark matter, and so on. But scientists do not "believe in" these things, nor take them on faith.
Rather, they derive experiments to test them. The value of these ideas depends only on what the experiments say, and not on anything else--not on the intelligence or the fame of the people who propose the ideas, not on how well the ideas sound, but only on whether or not they can be observed to be true.
Many non-scientists do not understand the way theories are formulated, and so say things like "Einstein proved that Newton's laws are false."
Einstein did not prove that Newton's laws are false. In fact, Newton's laws can not be false; if you use Newton's laws to calculate the path of a baseball or a satellite, and then you throw the baseball or launch the satellite, you'll see that Newton's laws are spot-on.
What Einstein did was show that Newton's laws apply only in certain circumstances; and created new, more complex laws that apply to more circumstances. But if you use relativity to calculate the path of a baseball--a silly thing to do, because it would be beastly complicated and difficult--but if you do it, you'll see that it arrives at the same answer Newton does.
Which it has to, because you can go out and throw the baseball and see that it's the correct answer.
Hell, if you were to have all the supercomputers the world has yet constructed at your disposal and you could duplicate all those computers a billion times over, you might have enough computing horsepower, maybe, to use quantum mechanics to calculate the path of a baseball. And if you did that, you'd find that that answer also matched Newton.
What laypeople see as one theory "proving wrong" another theory, scientists recognize as one theory being more general and applying to a larger set of circumstances as another theory. But any theory that disagrees with reality about the path the baseball takes is wrong on the face of it, no matter how elegant, because we *know* the path of that baseball. And any idea that we can't yet test against the reality isn't accepted on faith at all.
