At the moment there is irreducible complexity in nature
To the best our knowledge, that is untrue. If irreducible complexity is ever discovered in any biological system, it will be irrefutable evidence of an intelligent designer, although this need not be a god, just a powerful intelligence. But whether that intelligence is of natural or supernatural origin, the implication would be that something exists in some biological system that could not have been assembled by undirected biological evolution.
We have no news of any such discovery, although several biological systems have been offered as irreducibly complex, but in case, shown not to be. These include the eye, the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, and the clotting cascade. In each case, it was suggested that such an arrangement couldn't have assembled itself piecemeal, since the system doesn't work if missing any part, and the intermediary forms wouldn't be selected for by natural selection, since they had no function and therefore conferred no survival advantage. In every case, the claim was debunked.
At the moment we have no idea about life and what it is and where it came from
Science does. I do. The ideas aren't fully formulated yet, but we are far from no idea.
Creationists are often unaware of what is known. They don't study the science, and they wear a faith-based confirmation bias that won't allow them to see contradictory evidence. One creationist on RF has been telling us for years that there is no evidence for evolution, just speculations and assumptions. All that means to the educated is that she doesn't know what they do. You're leaning that way yourself - making claims that what you know is all that is known.
Science cannot rule out supernaturalistic claims for the origin of the universe and the life in it, but it need not. It's job is to continue investigating reality and describe what is there, not rule out what others claim might be there. If they ever find evidence better explained by imputing an intelligent designer such as irreducible complexity, then they will have cause to consider such a possibility.
But for now, no known barriers to a completely naturalistic explanation are known, and those that have ruled such a possibility off of their list of candidate hypotheses for nature have committed a non sequitur fallacy by so doing. There is no rational way to exclude the possibility that no god exists or is needed to account for reality. There is no observation, argument, experiment or algorithm that rule out either a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic account. They're both on the table until such time as one or the other can be ruled in or out.
So, science goes on investigating nature. In the case of the origin of life, progress is made every year demonstrating how the elements of life could have assemble themselves without intelligent oversight.
At the moment we know nothing about where the universe came from
Also untrue. We know quite a bit about how the universe evolved and assembled itself, and none of what we have discovered required an intelligent builder.
Why do people put faith in the methods of science
If by faith you mean belief insufficiently supported and often contradicted by evidence such as belief in a flat earth, creationism, the pandemic as hoax, the American election as stolen, etc., then no, faith is not required to justify trust in the methods of science. One can use his eyes. The proof is in the pudding. No more is needed to know to confirm to you that the science and engineering that underlay the manned Apollo moon missions was correct than that several human beings were taken to the moon and back successfully. We make the same judgement with a car or appliance manufacturer. If their product lasts longer or otherwise performs better than the competition, we understand that their methods for designing cars are valid. If a particular physician gets consistently better results than his peers, that is evidence that he processes information better. One needn't know how he does it, just that he gets results, and that therefore his methods are valid.
We expect the methods of science to continue generating ideas that can be used to predict nature as it has in the past. We also expect that none of these ideas will contain a god, as the history of science has been to show that a god is not needed in any scientific theory to give it more explanatory or predictive power. You could add angels pushing electrons around to the science of electronics, or a god to the theory of evolution, but neither idea adds anything of value to the science, and so there is no reason to do that. Theists often frame that as an anti-God prejudice, but it's actually a manifestation of the tried and true principle of parsimony in scientific modeling, which insists that no more complexity be added to an explanation than is needed to account for observations.
An interesting phenomenon of creationist apologetics is the failure of the apologist to recognize that his arguments only work on other faith-based thinkers, such as those reading creationist websites. He never seems to notice that when he brings these same arguments to those well trained in the sciences and in critical thinking, that they in every case tell him that his argument is incomplete and/or fallacious, or if he does, attributes it to intellectual dishonesty on the part of his critics rather than that his arguments just don't cut it with the knowledgeable.
The fact is that apologetics is for faith-based thinkers, and really should only be shared with them. It's purpose is to counter the advantage science has by being empirical and rational by attempting to convince scientifically unsophisticated religious readers and listeners that their beliefs are just as rational and supported by reason and evidence.
We'll see things such as nobody has ever witnessed a dog give birth to a cat, or science has proved that life can only come from other life. Here, they're seemingly appealing to empiricism like a scientist would, but using specious arguments that are easily debunked by others not found frequenting creationist sites or Sunday schools, such as a creationist is apt to find here on RF.
Here, those arguments are counterproductive to the apologist. Here, his errors are cited. It seems to me that there is zero hope of advancing the creationist agenda in a mixed venue like this one. The creationists routinely are show their errors and dismissed as unqualified to discuss the science.
Or maybe the creationist knows this and doesn't care. Perhaps he sees himself as a martyr in the lions' den doing what he thinks he is commanded to do by his God even in the face of adversity and rejection, which are described as a virtue. It's a common theme in evangelism.
Is what science has succeeded in finding out an excuse for putting faith in speculations?
