Scientists must answer the how s. By not answering Mesk's question, you've answered another of mine. Your disagreement is with science as a whole, not with evolution itself. You see, Physicists try to explain HOW matter and energy behave as they do. Geologists explain HOW the earth's surface behaves as it does.
Meteorologists explain HOW clouds form, and biologists explain HOW species form.
That is what science does, and your approach, like it or not, nullifies all of science by removing its ability to explain mechanism. Your approach applies to physics as much as it does to biology, and the end result is that you reject how all of science is practiced. I was trying to figure out which angle he was coming from, but it's pretty clear now. IF and only IF they would like to make their science in a naturalistic and a balanced perspective or position. Because naturalistic science can not and should not answer or explain the why s of nature.