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.
“The theory doesn’t have to be a ‘proven fact’ for the fallacy to operate.”
—Uh, of course not. As I’ve said (I think in every post now), a theory cannot be absolutely ‘proven’ to the point of being a logical certainty. The point of the fallacy is in not realizing that evidence found that is consistent with a theory merely *supports* a theory – it does not *prove* a theory. But you seem to be saying that it’s a fallacy to even think that evidence could even SUPPORT a theory – which would make even the concept of “evidence” itself a fallacy – since nothing could ever be used to support anything. That would mean that not only would finding elephant tracks in my backyard not ‘prove’ the statement that an elephant walked in my backyard – but it would even be completely IRREVELANT as to whether an elephant was in my backyard or not, and so there would be no point in even looking since nothing I find could “support” the contention either way. Likewise finding a bloody knife lodged in someone’s back with fingerprints shouldn’t be shown at a murder trial since it would be irrelevant – actually having trials at all would be pointless.
“Because evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism. It’s a simple statement. What part don’t you understand?”
—Usually when someone uses the term it’s a simple statement, but since you always use these terms in ways I’ve never seen elsewhere and you never explain what you mean, I have no idea what you are trying to say (I doubt anyone else does either).
Every other time I’ve seen the term ‘naturalism’ or ‘philosophy of naturalism’ what was meant was that the person believes that “nature is all there is” and thus believes that the supernatural and miracles don’t exist. In other words the charge would be that the person rules out the possibility of miracles or the supernatural a priori, and so no matter how strong the evidence of a miracle is – and/or how weak the evidence for a natural explanation is – they will believe the natural explanation regardless – i.e they believe that the supernatural or miracles are impossible. But you already said that it’s irrelevant what the people think, and so I don’t know what you mean. Perhaps you mean that anytime someone suspects a natural explanation for ANYTHING, it’s based on the “philosophy of naturalism”? And so if someone suspects that water turned to ice in the freezer because it’s cold, it’s because of the philosophy of naturalism?