Evolutionary Tree

[Esquilax]

Except that evolutionary theory has not predicted things dead on the money (the fossil record and the tree of life are examples that come to mind).

I didn't say it predicted everything correctly, but here we come back to your own ridiculous double standard and lack of understanding of science: probabilities are what science deals in, not certainties, and you'd be falling back into the "99%= 0%" fallacy if you kept to this specific argument. Science learns and improves itself over time- what corrected the tree of life and so on, for example, was more evolutionary science, not religion- and I'd like to point out two things: the first is that the reason you know about those things that evolutionary theory got wrong at all is because that same field advanced and corrected itself. Being wrong was a stepping stone on the way to being more correct, and yet for some strange reason you're happy to focus in on the incorrect prediction, while somehow ignoring the correction that follows.

The second thing is that the predictions and knowledge that evolution makes and provides have stood up to over a century of inquiry and investigation, including by means of technologies that literally did not exist at the time that the theory was invented. Over that time period, the basis of the theory has remained a cornerstone principle of all biological sciences, and has been confirmed by the data pulled from every single new technology we've invented, every one of which had the potential to challenge it.

Think about why that might be. And no, "they're just biased!" is not an acceptable answer.

Additionally, as we understand more about the cell factory and complex biological systems, it begins to strain the idea of the mechanism of evolutionary change. The larger Theory of Evolution is a network of other theories and facts that all must tell the same story. They don't as of yet. 

So you're relying on a hypocritical position on evolutionary predictions, and an argument from ignorance here (straining your credulity is not an argument). Nothing I particularly need to respond to further.

You are making a category mistake (and introducing a different subject). We are talking about a scientific theory on one hand that can very much be examined in great detail with repeated testing and observations. On the other hand when talking about religion, we are discussing supernatural entities, limited interaction in the natural world (one time events), metaphysical concepts, and questions of the mind--none of which are subject to any scientific method. It is therefore entirely appropriate to consider the two categories differently--as long as you keep the distinction in mind. 

And if you want to define the supernatural as something that resists scientific inquiry, then not only is any complaint about biases against the supernatural in science completely invalid, but you've also set up a scenario in which your supernatural claims cannot be demonstrated, and hence cannot be taken seriously.

My point, though, is that you're observing a phenomenon in gravity, inferring a cause for it, and then somehow placing that inference into a higher category over evolution when in reality it's on the same level. How can you rule out the invisible pixies hypothesis with regards to gravity, and if you can't, then doesn't your same line of argument apply to it too?

I am not opposed to methodological naturalism. Just pointing out that the Theory of Evolution is somewhat unique in that it has to be true for those who's philosophical position is naturalism and therefore the confidence in the whole theory is higher than if just methodological naturalism is employed. 

No, you're wrong. Evolution doesn't have to be true at all; please don't bring your preconceived notions of some war between evolution and religion into this. Evolution could be proved false tomorrow and it wouldn't alter my position regarding the supernatural one bit; it wouldn't do that to anyone who won't be taken in by arguments from ignorance. Evolution not being true doesn't lend an iota more credence to supernatural explanations.

Regarding the list, I only wanted to make the observation that these sub-theories are not on par with other parts of the theory which are observable--like basic decent with modification due to mutations and natural selection. But before I can discuss at a productive level, I will research. I will get back to this.

Maybe you should have researched before you brought up the ID talking points? I mean, it's not like I just pulled all that out of my ass, I made sure what I was saying was true before I said it.