the principles of world view

So which is it?

Evolution is not a "belief system", it's an explanatory framework for the variation we see in extant, and extinct, lifeforms. I don't know why Creationists have such difficulty with the simple point that Evolution cannot explain the existence of life.As for having faith that life somehow sprung from non-living matter, this isn't faith. It's an inescapable conclusion. We know, for a fact, there is life on Earth now and we know, for a fact, there wasn't life on Earth 4.7 billion years ago. Something happened in the meantime; that we don't know what that is does not make it faith.

Once again; it's not a belief system. You can disagree with the science, you can argue the evidence, question the reasoning but for as long as you prattle about "belief systems" you're going to miss the point. Evidence: learn it, understand it, criticise it. If you're right, you'll win. That's how science works. I look at the evidence, and conclude from the evidence that Evolution happened. You see the difference? You're saying you believe in Creationism and conclude about the causes of life accordingly; I don't "believe in Evolution", I conclude it. That's a fascinating suggestion, could you start a new thread with more details of your views on this?

Given that Linnaeus grouped monkeys and apes most closely to Humans some hundred years before Darwin penned The Origin of Species, and apparently believed in the immutability of the species he was identifying, can it really be said that Evolution is required to recognise similarity?

True. Linneaus erred on various groupings, and included a number of mythological entities in his scheme. However, that Dolphins were not fish is a fact originally recognised from their physical morphology not from any application of evolutionary theory. What makes the research useful or not is not whether we are related but whether the systems relevant to the study are similar. Which is why, for example, developmental biology studies done on fruit flies have proved useful in understanding the development of human babies and some disorders thereof.While relatedness provides a useful proxy for similarity (because of evolution) it's really simularity, not relatedness, that matters.

No. You need to measure similarity. By similarity I don't just mean looking at brute physical traits, I also mean looking at metabolic pathways, protein structure, genomes, etc.When it comes down to it, you don't need to understand evolution to deal with notions of more or less similar or establish which species are useful models for what features of humans (although, frankly, you'd have to be blind not to deduce evolution from what you find).