In religeon, it is called conversion when the individual is willing to accept teachings which cannot be proven, on faith.
It is one thing to accept that there have been advances in scientific understanding, it is another to accept the predictions on faith when there are serious blanks in the understanding.
theory of evolution as the best current, scientific explanation for biological development and diversification
I would have no objection if it were taught as the "best, current explanation". It is when it is enforeced as dogma as the only explanation.
If you will state it as your beliefs, and not insist the whole theory has been proven to a scientific certainty, you would draw fewer objections.
Most people who have beliefs state them as the "best" explanation, but most don't go to court and excercise political muscle to throw the others out and insist that everyone accept their faith.
Or to use political muscle to force biology teachers to teach non-science.
Really? I had no idea. You see, I was raised by wolves in Siberia, so I have never been exposed to religion. : )
"It is one thing to accept that there have been advances in scientific understanding, it is another to accept the predictions on faith when there are serious blanks in the understanding."
Fairly obvious point. And since scientists who work with and advance the field of evolutionary biology don't accept anything about the theory of evolution "on faith", also an irrelevant point.
"I would have no objection if it were taught as the "best, current explanation"."
It is. So you have no objection. And we have no argument.
"It is when it is enforeced as dogma as the only explanation."
It's not. Take the time to actually read a modicum of current scientific literature concerning evolutionary biology, and you will see that it is a very dynamic field of study. And any competing scientific theory supplanting the general principals of evolution would undoubtedly earn its author a Nobel prize. Hence, this "objection" is groundless.
"If you will state it as your beliefs, and not insist the whole theory has been proven to a scientific certainty, you would draw fewer objections."
If you would take the time to learn what a scientific theory actually is, and that scientific theories are never "proven", you would draw fewer looks of incredulity.
Your apparent need to define all knowledge as "mere belief", and to fit all fields of inquiry into the four corners of religion, does not make such categorization accurate.
Religious beliefs require "faith" because of a lack of evidence to support them. Lack of evidence is, indeed, the sine qua non of "faith". And religious beliefs remain unchanged irrespective of evidentiary contradiction (for example, the belief that God is merciful even after a child is taken by a horrific disease). I hold these religious belief just as you do, but I don't confuse them with scientific theories, any more than I confuse a philosophy book and a phone book.
Scientific theories are founded on evidence, and where the evidence leads, theory follows. Simple as that.
"Most people who have beliefs state them as the "best" explanation, but most don't go to court and excercise political muscle to throw the others out and insist that everyone accept their faith."
Since you are apparently referring to the Dover lawsuit, I strongly suggest that read the opinion in that case. It is very enlightening, and neither the case nor the opinion bear any resemblence to your statement here.