I think your problem is with the definition of predictable.
If I state that the sun will come up tomorrow is that a prediction or an observation? I would call it an observation that the earth is spinning. If I state that you will die at some time in the future, again, is that on observation or prediction? I would call that an observation that everyone dies.
With that definition in place, is Darwinism (and Science in General) based on prediction or observation. I think it is pretty clear that Science is based on observation.
Religion on the other hand is based on the unobservable and claims to be able to make predictions. In fact it claims that its predictions are infallible prophecy. The fact though is that there have been no accurate prophecies from religion.
The reality is that religionist’s are the ones suffering from “magic-thinking and self-delusion”.
It is not enough that evolution through natural selection of genetic variation explain observations, to be truly useful it also needs to be able to predict results.
For example one would predict that multiple rounds of replication with error prone DNA polymerase and a stringent selection criteria could generate proteins with novel and beneficial properties.
Or one might predict where and when (in what strata) a fish with tetra-pod features would be found; and then they went out and found one.
One might also predict how a population would respond to selective pressure such as to predict that poor patient compliance in taking antibiotics would lead to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.
snip: I think your problem is with the definition of predictable.
If I state that the sun will come up tomorrow is that a prediction or an observation? I would call it an observation that the earth is spinning. If I state that you will die at some time in the future, again, is that on observation or prediction? I would call that an observation that everyone dies.
Spirited: You are cutting hairs. To predict is to foretell events. We can only foretell events-—however imperfectly— because past (historic) observations have fallen into certain patterns, thus allowing us to predict. If Darwinism is paradoxically true and all things happen by chance, then it stands to reason that the sun for instance, ought to behave erratically rather than predicatably.
snip: With that definition in place, is Darwinism (and Science in General) based on prediction or observation
Spirited: Darwinism needs to be separated from true science, for Darwinism is in fact an ‘anti-creation mythos’ based on a miraculous event-—life spontaneously created itself from nothing— that occurred long before time began. All who believe in Darwinism-—as you do-— do so by faith-—blind faith.