The discussions about "proof" versus "faith" - or science versus religion; are essentially nonsense.
In such discussions, 'faith' is pejoratively defined in terms that regard it as unfounded - but it is better to consider faith as more like 'trust', but trust being regarded in a personal way; we trust someone that we regard as having our best interests at heart.
The differences between so-called proof and faith are in truth a matter of assumptions, 'metaphysical' assumptions regarding the fundamental nature of reality; and our task is to bring these assumptions to awareness - so that they can be considered and evaluated.
'Proof' is always understood in terms of assumptions; 'scientific proof' is built on a large number of assumptions about what is science; also that 'scientists' are being honest in truth-seeking and expression; plus a technical understanding of what kind of thing counts as evidence - and what is implied by some purported piece of evidence.
In sum; all of science is built-upon assumptions that are at root always human judgments - and making these human judgments compulsory and exclusive is just another human judgment.
So that when somebody (or, more likely some committee) declares that 'Science is X" or "This is (or This is not) real science" then this statement itself is, of course, consequence of a human judgment.
The greatest fallacy about science is that it has somehow eluded the need for human judgment; that science has no assumptions - but is somehow entirely made of 'facts', of 'evidence' (...these facts and evidences being objectively known as such, and with objectively-fixed implications).
But, because this fallacy has become accepted (mainly in response to the takever of real science by bureaucratic financial and power structures of Big Science that have developed since World War II); science (so called) has become a prime mechanism for social and psychological manipulation.
Real science is by 2020 all but extinct; and certainly cannot be found among those who owe their position, status, and influence to their selection and support by Power. Such individuals (or, more likely, committees) speak on behalf of power - not truth.
This happens because the reality of science being built upon human judgments is dishonestly concealed and untruthfully denied; and instead the lie is propagated that 'what scientists say' is objective fact about the world.
Of course, public science is in fact even further removed; being what the media-politicians tell-us that scientists say.
The manipulation is that those with power who claim to be speaking in the name of science to present themselves as neutral reporters on reality; are actuality using the name of science as a rationalisation for the tyrannical imposition of their ideology.
The scientific bureaucracy dutifully constructs whatever 'objective evidence' is required to rationalise whatever The Establishment want people to do; or to be prevented from doing.
And all this is - in 2020 - so blazingly obvious that it requires complicit evil on the part of any adult who fails to notice what is happening on a daily basis!
Which is why the eyes above the masks we see in daily life, are increasingly resemble those of zombies, or snakes.