Whether one "believes in evolution" or understands all the details of the theory is really secondary

[daedalus_dude]

What matters is whether or not a person accepts that the universe follows causal un-violatable rules.

I think this is the principal difference the people who deny evolution and those who don't.

In the past, it was a widespread belief that mice can just appear out of nothing in old barns. Or that
fruit just has a tendency to turn into worms if left to lay around, for no particular reason
that can be further explored.

The claim that there are hidden, in-explorable, unexplainable things at work within the developement
of species is no different from that.

What distinguishes a scientific point of view from other points of view is the assumption
that a causal chain of events can be traced all the way back to the beginning of the universe.

Now the definition of causality is by no means an easy one. Modern physics investigates
the causal evolution of quantum states.

And obviously, a final definition of causality must also contain an explanation what time really is,
otherwise one could always ask about the cause before the cause.

But that doesn't change the fact that no single events that violate the postulate
of quantum causality after the beginning of the universe are reliably accounted for.

So far, all accounts of intrinsicly inexplainable phenomena are very likely explained by the
explainable flaws of human perception.

[Zoeisright]

1. Exactly.

Science doesn't have a 'belief system' like religion does. Science deals in verifiable theories and facts.

[Chemisse]

2. Indeed

Science doesn't ask you to 'believe'. There is no need to take a leap of faith.

[old mark]

3. You don't have to believe in evolution -

evolution believes in you.

rec.

mark