[statement B]What math and science both have that philosophy and theology lack is a combination of usefulness, internal consistency, and cross cultural consensus.
That was something you said, ostensibly as a clarification of:
[statement A]Logic is of little value when you set up your definitions so you can’t lose an argument.
Now, you have clarified statement B with the summation:
[statement C]Both math and science are judged primarily by their usefulness.
I think it is fair enough to conclude your statement A was a was not worthy of what seems to be a more reasonable view on your part. Whether you own up or not, let us proceed as if it were a misstatement.
As I understand it, the original motivation behind statement A was that philosophy and theology were too "convenient" in the way they were set up. But that seems rather close to the criteria you say we judge science and math on: usefulness. Where "convenience" is bad, and "usefulness" is good.
I will grant you there may be a difference between the two, but it seems you are a hair's breadth from supporting some philosophies on the same grounds that you show disdain for others. Perhaps you should flesh out this difference a little. Might it be that you would have to consider some theology "useful"? From a Darwinian view, why else would our species have evolved a positive disposition to it?
Alas, I'm even afraid the problem with an original causality argument that set all this off, is not just that it was too "convenient", but that it was too "convenient" at what it was "used" for. Specifically to debunk naturalism.
Now if that is not a use one likes, then I suppose one should reject such arguments for not being "useful". And indeed some cultures will probably be prone to reject it more then others, although acceptance and rejection of such is probably more closely tied to subcultures. For instance rejection among naturalists and atheists might be almost universal. For them a good argument against their belief system has very little use.
With that, I'm afraid the fork should be stuck in this one. Its done.
Useful is a loaded word. Evolution describes how inherited characteristics affect reproductive success. Not all "useful" traits involve physical prowess. Some, like peacock feathers and verbal fluency, just increase a male's chances of getting laid. I wouldn't be surprised if religious behavior fell into this category, but such speculations are cheap, and worth every penny.