I think there is a qualitative difference between Faith1 and Faith2. Faith1 is required by the fact that we don't have time to go investigate everything ourselves. We do need to use Faith1 constantly, even in science. But we could, in theory, go check these results out ourselves. We could put 1 species of chichlid in our own pond, and watch it for 20 years. Someone may do this over the next few decades.

Faith2 is simply untestable.

When I said "no faith required", I was acknowledging that a belief in geologic-scale evolution *does* require some faith. In fact, it even requires some Faith2 - a theory about what happens over millenia is not directly testable over a human lifespan. Now, I think the circumstantial evidence is incredibly massive (especially in these days of gene sequencing and molecular biology), but I admit that its still circumstantial.

To some degree, human breeding can demonstrate evolution faithlessly, in that we can change an environment and watch a species adapt genetically. That proves, through a simple observation, that species can adapt genetically when their environment changes. But maybe that is only because we put such strong selection pressure on them. Maybe that isn't how evolution works in the wild.

The chichlid evidence demonstrates that evolution can happen in a directly observable way without any selection pressure imposed by humans. Without knowing how to compare gene sequences of the chichlids, you could simply watch them diverge. (perhaps check by attempted crossbreeding).

You are right that it still requires a little faith. But this moves some part of the theory of evolution into the realm of Faith1, specifically the question "Can evolution happen without human selective pressure". I still think there is a fundamental difference between Faith1 and Faith2, and so "No Faith2 required" is a meaningful and relevant statement.