Meaning of course - the previous science was, in fact, wrong (or shall we say, "not perfect?")
And each time they do, they prove the previous models, or science were in fact wrong.
No, it doesn't You just don't understand the actual meaning of either 'faith' or 'belief' and are you confounding both with some sort of anti-supernatural, spiritual bias.
In fact, you yourself provided a perfect example of the difference in this very post!
Being a firm believer in science, you readily acknowledge it has been, and most likely still is - wrong (or shall we say, "not perfect?") although you don't yet know why because for the answer to that you have to wait until further science proves it so - which is a reasonable stance, given the above, that "more science" disproves (or shall we say, "makes more perfect?") "previous science."
Nevertheless, you have planted your feet firmly on your belief in science and will both promote and defend it vigorously. That, my friend, is faith. And it didn't take anything supernatural or spiritual to be so.
Your problem is you're too tuned in to a meaning of faith that is described solely by the latter, by the supernatural - and because you don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual, you refuse any affiliation whatsoever with it.
In view of the actual definitions of belief and faith, yours is an untenable position.