Okay, a lot of people don't like my "I just don't buy it" approach. Let's try to approach it from a different perspective:
1) My understanding of the prevailing scientific sentiment is that, at some point in the past, there was no life on earth. Then, through only natural means using no designer, life began. From that initial life, all life that is now on the earth evolved.
2) The beliefs stated in part 1 above are accepted as scientific.
My problem is that science cannot reproduce the events as stated above and that science cannot even provide me with the causal specificity to go from one stage to another. To me, this is as much science as alchemy is. If you can't reproduce it and you can't tell me exactly how it happened, how can you call it science? Basically, you're just telling me that it happened and calling it science.