I didn't attack the scientific method, just the way some try to use it. That is the reason I selected the sub-group I did.
Then there's this: ToE "fits the facts" for philosophical reasons... the possibility of all "supernatural" explanations have to be excluded, as they fall outside of the realm of all "real" science. The study of science has fallen into a circular argument, favoring one philosophy over all others.
I tend to define supernatural as anything that falls outside of direct observation using our current tools, which is why I put the word supernatural in quotes. The kind I'm talking about does not rely on an existence of any god. Yes, I wish I had a better word to use to explain what I'm talking about. Extra-natural? We can observe the effects & come up with a bunch of different ideas about the cause.
On some digs somewhere, a bunch of horses & carts are found. Most of the digs find many carts & very few horses. Other sites have a lot of horses, but very few carts. Science concludes few or no connections between horses & carts. Then one day a discovery is made of a horse that is tied to the back of a cart. Findings from previous digs are reevaluated & support is found to support the "horses push carts theory".
This is not a circular argument. Science has no means for measuring the supernatural, so it must exclude it. (Not deny it, just exclude it).
While ToE is the best current explanation for the variety of life on Earth, it could be wrong. If all hypotheses begin with the assumption that ToE is correct, all evidence found will tweak it & none will challenge it. Begin with the assumption that ToE is wrong... or is that too wild to even contemplate?
Your complaint is akin to rejecting a yardstick because it won't give you the barometric pressure.
Yardstick, measures distances, right? As you pull out your yardstick to measure the diameter of the Earth, maybe it would be better if I didn't voice any questions about your method. Carry on. When y'all pull it out to measure the distance between the Earth to the Sun... oh, never mind. ;o)
"Science has no means for measuring the supernatural, so it must exclude it."
A while ago there was a report of a scientific experiment where certain patients were prayed for, and others were not. The poster boasted that the ones that had been prayed over had a better recovery rate. All well and good ...
But, I had the audacity to ask "who was being prayed to ?"
Christ ? The Virgin Mary ? St. Joseph of Asprin ? Bhudda ?
It would seem to be an obvious scientific question about a scientific experiment, but the answer was not forthcoming, nor did I ever here of any followup experiments.
Very curious considering the supposed "success" of the first try at measuring the supernatural.