I'm implying that unless you've done every scientific experiment yourself, you have faith that they are presenting the facts to you completely and without tainting them. Just like salmon with faith believes their priest/pastor is presenting them the correct facts, you have faith in the scientists to present you the correct facts.
As far as I know they have no reason to lie and explain/show evidence of their findings? No, the difference here is rationally and logically there is no reason for them to lie about what they've found. To suggest otherwise is just to have doubt in science over some ridiculous, unfounded and illogical conspiracy. Scientists do show their evidence for what they're claiming and they do explain it -- there's no debate to this. If any new discovery is made and reported, an explanation for it and/or evidence is always given. Always. If not, the claim does not get made because that's not how science work. Science is not some big, strange conspiracy.
I really just don't view it as a blind faith in the same vain as religion.
Lump together a body of scientific community, then also lump together a body of theological community, and they are functionally not that different from one another: Dogma. Faith comes into play, because of the institutional need to support dogma. A scientific upstart is going to have just as hard time selling his alternative ideas as his theological counterpart. While bad theology is entirely possible, so can bad science. (A very good example of bad science today can be seen from dogma found in obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases.) Bear in mind that both pursuits are conducted by people and thus will carry over their peculiarities like cherry-picking.