"It is only through your godless materialism that you discount, a priori, the Angelic Push (AP) theory of gravity, which posits that gravity is really Angels pushing things here and there."
Apparently you missed my point entirely. The point is that gravity is an equation, and the equation is the same no matter what theory is attached to it, be it your comical angelic push, some sort of laws of attraction, or mass warping space.
The equation for gravity is experimentally verifiable -- the reason for the equation matters little except influence possible future directions.
History, however, is full of unique events. Because of their uniqueness, it is impossible to test historical theories the same way you can test scientific theories. Therefore, they are based more on philosophy than experimentation. The history of the world that includes universal common ancestry is based on naturalistic assumptions.
No, I was making a joke.
The point is that gravity is an equation,
Wrong. Gravity is a force, which can be described by an equation.
History, however, is full of unique events. Because of their uniqueness, it is impossible to test historical theories the same way you can test scientific theories.
Historical sciences are tested by formulating hypotheses and examining the evidence. These "unique" historical events leave evidence of themselves, and the science is the process of dealing with this evidence. They are tested differently than physics, but they are no less science.
Creationists have a wacky view of science, that anything but physics and some chemistry isn't science because you can't do Larry-Labcoat twelfth-grade science experiments on them. It is sort of a reverse Physics envy. Just because you can't pull "the history of the evolution of canids" into the lab doesn't make the study of the evolution of canids somehow not science.
Therefore, they are based more on philosophy than experimentation. The history of the world that includes universal common ancestry is based on naturalistic assumptions.
No, what you are doing is asking science to be something that it is not. You are saying that unless science is party religion, then it is merely philosophy. That's just stupid. The fact that science doesn't consider the long line of gods believed by humans throughout history--from Isis to Yahweh/Jehovah to Woden to Jupiter to Uhura Mazda to the invisible pink unicorn--and bases itself on naturalistic tenets, doesn't make science into "philosophy." It makes it "not religion."