My dedication is to the best, most probable explanation, not evolution per se. Its not faith based, its evidence based. If the evidence turns on evolution, so will my belief.
There is a definite distinction between faith, and inference to the best explanation.
I think you guys are down to arguing the semantics of "faith" vis-a-vis evolutionary science.
I have stated a couple of times that I really don't have a dog in this fight, but in a way, you are both correct in your arguments from my perspective. "rubliw" is correct so far as the present state of science on the subject indicates that available evidence points to an "evolutionary process" involved in life as we know it on earth.......how it started, where it is going, and why there are gaping inconsistancies, science can only speculate,
and speculation is not science.......it can be broadly defined (as "Carl" does) as "faith". Evolutionists shun that word, but in order to arrive at conclusions where there is no evidence, it is an apt way to describe it.
"Carls" perspective from a creationist position accepts the "process" on faith without the evidence........
Therefore, we end up debating the meaning of "faith".........and inasmuch as the overview is concerned, Carl is also essentially correct........both positions rely on "faith". If evolutionists want to use another term for it that makes them feel better, so be it, but it is there, none the less.
As I stated in the OP, in my years in the hard sciences, I never found a conflict between my faith, and science, because I have always taken a larger view of the universe, and all that is in it as an "entity", and not as a process........therefore never falling into the trap of having to view any part of scientific study as conflicting with what for my faith, I accept as a "given"........
doc