“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?
That's correct and doesn't seem to be a probem.
"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."
No, the point of understanding the fallacy is realizing that the existence of Q does not necessarily support P. It only appears to because the believer is engaging in fallacy.
You said, "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 not necessary for evolution to be claimed to be a logical certainty for the fallacy to operate.
"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."
No, evidence is what it is. The concept of evidence is not damaged because it is used in fallacious thinking. It is the fallacious thinking that is the problem, not the evidence.
"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."
Evolution relies on natural explanations of evidence no matter how weak because it does assume naturalism 'a priori' and uses the fallacy of affirming the consequent to assume 'support' from evidence.
Your use of 'weak evidence' and 'strong evidence' appears to be where one of the problems occurs. Evidence is neither weak nor strong. Evidence simply is. It is the explanation that attempts to fit the evidence into the theory that is either weak or strong and that is where the fallacy operates.
"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?"
Unless it is a fact proven by excluding all other theories, any assumed natural explanation fitting evidence into a naturalistic theory is using the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
You appear to be thinking that any natural explanation of evidence is automaticallly wrong if the fallacy is invoked. It is the theory (P) that may still be wrong if the fallacy is invoked, not the explanation.
The natural explanation of evidence may be fine, but may not uniquely support the theory (P) because it also fits into competing theories that are diametrically opposed to theory (P). The natural explanation of evidence may also be wrong because it is assumed and not observed and so does not support the theory (P) at all.
Fallacious thinking means that you will not recognize that possibility because naturalism is assumed 'a priori' and the explanation is also assumed to be 'support' because of that 'a priori' assumption.
If you research the proper meanings of the terms “philosophical naturlism” and “methodological naturalism” I believe you’ll discover where the fallacy of the argument is.