[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Again, every new fossil is a test of evolution. Evolution provides an explanatory framework that fits the known fossils. If a new fossil fits within that framework, evolution is strengthened. If not, the theory is altered to account for it.

Not incidentally, many of the major fossil frauds and hoaxes were exposed because they didn't fit the existing framework.

The problem with this model, and the problem with calling this science, is that it is guaranteed that evolution will never be disproven; because all you have to do is change the model to fit the new discoveries. That's what Gould did with punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism was disproven by the fossil record so, poof!, change by macromutation replaces micromutation and it's still called evolution!!!

Evolution in the broad sense is philosophy. However, the underlying mechanisms (the scientific part of evolution) that have been proposed over the years have one by one shown to be wrong or have serious problems. But, since it is allowed that any underlying mechanism can be changed to fit the facts and it is still labeled "evolution", it can never be disproven by definition. So the philosophy of evolution remains while the science of evolution changes as needed to suppport the philosophy. Conveniently, both are labeled evolution.

[VadeRetro]

That's what Gould did with punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism was disproven by the fossil record so, poof!, change by macromutation replaces micromutation and it's still called evolution!!!

From Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium:

What Is The Mechanism Of Evolution In These Cases?

The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium does not say, and it shouldn't. There are a number of known evolutionary mechanisms, such as the Founder Effect, Natural Selection, neutral drift, sexual selection, and so on. Other mechanisms may be discovered in the future. There is no particular reason to expect that cases of Punctuated Equilibrium must all use the same mechanism. The point of the theory is only that evolution is more likely to happen to small groups, isolated from the homogenizing effect of the larger main group.

You're really not that familiar with this stuff. You only know what Duane Gish or someone of that ilk told you about punctuated equilibrium and it's wrong.

As for your larger point that science keeps changing its story, a particular scenario (gradualism) was found to be inadequate by itself. Another model came to the fore, although it probably doesn't apply in all cases either. (However, it almost certainly does apply in many.) That the newer model is still evolution is not too shocking to those in the know. There's a lot of evidence for evolution.

Science converges upon ever-more accurate modeling of reality. If a step doesn't take you that way, you don't move.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...change the model to fit the new discoveries...

The essence of science is to make the model fit the discovery. This is why Creationism (even in the vanity of ID) is not science and should not be taught as such. Many a beautiful theory is raped by an ugly fact.

[Condorman]

evolution will never be disproven; because all you have to do is change the model to fit the new discoveries.

As Doctor Stochastic wrote in his reply, "The essence of science is to make the model fit the discovery."

How can you possibly manage to construe this as a flaw in the scientific method? If the model doesn't fit the observations, change it until it does.

change by macromutation replaces micromutation and it's still called evolution

Weren't we just talking about how observations will either support or disprove a theory? And that how a theory must account for all the observations? And if it doesn't it must be changed or discarded? Or are you just irritated by the nomenclature?