“Which is why it is false to say that evolution is a proven fact. It is not. It is a theory based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. “
—Yes, it would be false to say that it’s a ‘proven fact’, which I’ve mentioned several times. I have never seen it claimed that evolution is a logical certainty, and so I have yet to see anyone commit the fallacy.
“It is irrelevant what people who believe in evolution believe. They could believe in fairies in the garden. It wouldn’t change the the fact that evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
—Then what sense does it make to say that it is based on ‘naturalism’? You keep making claims without explaining what you mean.
Do you believe that ALL theories are “fallacies of affirming the consequent” and ‘naturalism’, or do you believe that evolution is somehow different? If the theory of evolution is different from other theories, than in what way is it different?
The theory doesn't have to be a 'proven fact' for the fallacy to operate. The only way the fallacy can be true and not a fallacy is the theory is a proven fact. Short of that, evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"—Then what sense does it make to say that it is based on ‘naturalism’? You keep making claims without explaining what you mean."
Because evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism. It's a simple statement. What part don't you understand?
"Do you believe that ALL theories are “fallacies of affirming the consequent” and ‘naturalism’, or do you believe that evolution is somehow different? If the theory of evolution is different from other theories, than in what way is it different?"
I'm just pointing out the fact that evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It's simply a philosophy supported by a fallacy. That won't matter to evolution's true believers. Their goal is to minimize the importance of that fact and claim that a philosophy supported by a fallacy is 'science'.
It does make a difference to people who can still think-critically.