This is actually the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That because P 'predicts' Q and Q is observed; then P is supported. This works if and only if all alternatives to P are proved to be impossible.
The philosophy of naturalism is what forces 'science' to conclude that what is observed happened without cause and for no reason through purely natural methods. Alternatives to P are excluded by definition. This is a philosophical choice, a scientific axiom, not an empirical fact.
You can never prove all alternatives to be impossible. Like trying to prove something can’t be done. Your logic itself is holey. ;)
Science is in no way forced to say there is no cause except natural. Make a testable experiment that involves the supernatural. Do it. And then analyze the results.
If you’re saying the scientific method is a philosophy, not true. It’s just a way to solve problems, guidelines as Jack Sparrow would say.
“This is actually the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That because P ‘predicts’ Q and Q is observed; then P is supported. This works if and only if all alternatives to P are proved to be impossible. “
—That is not the fallacy of affirming the consequent. To be the fallacy, you’d have to replace the word ‘supported’ with ‘proven’.
I suppose it could be said that someone is committing the fallacy if they said that it’s impossible for evolution to be false - but I don’t think I’ve ever seen that.