So then I presume you could never vote to convict on a jury, because however convincing the evidence and the prosecution's theory of the crime, the alternative theory of miraculous intervention would always exist.
Or you would vote to convict, in which case you're willing to take the risk of unjustly ruining another human being's life, based on the presumption a miracle didn't occur, but you're not willing to accept a scientific origin of species, based on the same presumption. Strange priorities you have.
You don't believe that, and I understand that. I'm just noting that we come from two very different worldviews
Mine appears to be self-consistent.
God gives us reason so that we can make judgments. That's true in a jury trial. If someone asserted that a miracle was involved, a person of faith would have to use judgment to determine if it was true, and render a verdict accordingly.
Just because one believes in miracles doesn't obligate one to believe in every miracle that is claimed. I told you, I'm not a YEC, but there are a few here (Fester Chugabrew, for example) who would make the case for a young earth, and I respect that, just as I respect you.
As for evolution, I think it's a fine theory. It may be true, but I hardly think the evidence is conclusive that we're the product of a lineage that goes back to a single cell. This ain't the O.J. trial. Maybe the theory of evolution is true. Maybe it's God's method of creation. Or maybe it just happened. Or maybe there are things deep in the mists of history that we don't understand.
Nice bit of swashbuckling, but "reasonable doubt" is not the same thing as "disproof"...
Cheers!