Came here to respond in pretty much the same way to that argument. Thank you. I'll add a few thoughts of my own in support.

The sentence "In reality, faith is central to atheism, logic and even science." is nonsense. Taking the three things that the sentence claims in turn:

Atheism: The null hypothesis for any entity is that the entity does not exist unless there is evidence. As there is no credible evidence for god, the sensible (not faith) position is that there is no god. Exactly like your invisible elephant.

Logic: Err, what? This is so nonsensical any rational mind would reject it out of hand.

Science: As someone else has said, this confuses two meanings of "faith", belief without evidence and confidence, in science this confidence is based on evidence.

Dr. Egnor on the other hand has fallen for the classic god of the gaps fallacy. We don't understand how this happens, therefore god.