"To embrace one interpretation over another requires belief."
No, it isn't. You give a contorted definition of belief. By your logic, accepting genetics over pangenesis is a belief, accepting the Big Bang theory over steady-state theory is a belief, and accepting the Alvarez theory over gradualistic extinction is a belief. These aren't beliefs; they're simply theories with the most evidence and the most accurate explanation for the current data.
You said: No, it isn't.
Interesting. So what would you call embracing one interpretation over another?
By your logic, accepting genetics over pangenesis is a belief, accepting the Big Bang theory over steady-state theory is a belief, and accepting the Alvarez theory over gradualistic extinction is a belief.
Of course.
they're simply theories with the most evidence and the most accurate explanation for the current data.
And there are varying theories depending on one's interpretation of the data. So you choose to either believe one interpretation of the data, or you choose to believe another. It is belief.
I realize that for evols, that's a terrifying word, so they avoid it like the plague. Seems quite irrational to me.