Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?

I don't think we have enough samples to conclude this in the way you have expressed it. Not yet anyway.Science as practiced today is less than 500 years old. (One might argue more like half that but it has been tightened up in increments to a real line might be hard to draw).This is one reason why I disagree with calling astrology pseudo science. It is realy PRE-science.I also disagree with saying that it was the foundation in any way, for astronomy. The observations where partially used in astronomy. But the observations are NOT astrology. Astrology was more like (in todays parlance) a 'theory' about how things behaved. It is simply wrong and none of it made it into astronomy.Now, back to the more immediate topic.From Newton's laws of motion onward the scientific theories that have been supported the most stridently and with the most evidence have not been totally "left in the dust". Instead they are turned onto special cases or modified. Newton's mechanics are still useful even though in a technical sense they are "wrong".As another couple of centuries goes by I think that we will find this is the pattern ( I may be accused of "scientism" here or just wild-eyed optimism). The best theories will be, in some form, intact but not all "correct".What will this look like? Wish I could guess.So far it seems that Darwinism is going to stay intact. However, it may turn out that neo-darwinism may have to undergo further refinement. By that I wildly speculate that the synthesis that beings genetic ideas in will be modifed as we understand how complex that all is.

It isn't just "science" defined in some pretty strict way. It really is "knowing" anything about anything.If there is another way to arrive at conclusions that have some moderate degree of assurance of being correct what is it?It is off topic here to go into it but there might be room in one of these threads or a PNT would do it.
The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
What is Science?
What is it to know?
How do we know?
What is Objective Evidence? (Evidence for More than One)The question is:
If I want to know (that is to be able to bet that something is proobably true) something what approach do I use?

We have examples of two forms of "design" available for us to examine. One is the design that known human designers create. The other are the "designs" that the process described by evolutionary theory produces.When we compare what we see in nature we find the "designs" there are closer to those produced by evolutionary processes than those produced by human designers.This is the reason that we conclude that the "designs" in nature only give the "illusion" of human like design not because of a preconception of a general nature. Dawkins is one who does carry some pretty strong personal opinions about the existance of a god -- however, as has been pointed out, others who have strong personal opinions that a god exists arrive at exactly the same conclusion about the type of design that we find in nature.Your argument does not hold water when you consider the very large number of believers who arrive at the same conclusion as the unbelievers. This suggests that there is some other reason than a naturalistic bias.

That is a big and well constructed and argued post Ex (if I may call you by your first name )I'm not going to take on the whole thing all at once. I think others might touch on different bits. However I think there are two main points that I would like to talk about:
1) The separation of theory and fact regarding human ancestry
and
2) Philosophical naturalism vs Methodolgical naturalism (a distinction that I have come to understand because of spending too much time around here )The first one: One problem with this is the difficulty of being so sure that we can mark a bit of our "knowledge" as "fact" and another bit as "not fact". For anything not totally obvious we only get to consider something more or less likely to be "correct". If we throw our apple out in front of us we would say it is a "fact" that it follows a curved path through space. In "fact" it follows a straight path through spacetime.The human ancestor "theory" is not just based on the genetic information you give as part of the support for it. There is the chain of fossil specimens that are less and less like us as we go back in time. There is the evolutionary details of other forms of like bith extinct and extant. There is the correlation of that information with the genetic information.At some point, when you have piled up enough such details the likelyhood of the human ancestor theory becomes great enough that you have a hard time saying it is less probable than something that seems to be "obviously" fact.The saying goes that you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. I think that is only approximately correct. As facts are not all so clearly on the "fact side" of the line different individuals might have something on one side while another person might put that thing on the other side.However, given everything we know the "theory" of human ancestry is too solid to consider it to be different from the "fact" of the apple falling. (which it is perhaps not doing in the way we thought it was).So I would agree with Gould in this specific example. However, we can agree to disagree about the use of the word "fact" and instead say "overwhelmingly likely to be true idea".Second :Methodological naturalism vs Philosophical naturalismI will first offer my own distinction.Philosophical naturalism is the philosophical, unprovable and not disprovable either, idea that the natural is all there is.Methodological naturalism is the philosophy which says that we can only learn about the [b]natural[/i] world by using natural inputs.In your discussion you mix the two up. Dawkins holds to philosophical naturalism. He says that studying evolution forces one to move to this position. However, I disagree. The beliefs of philosophical naturalism are a postition taking without direct supporting evidence. It is a leap (of 'faith'?) made on a lack of evidence.Gould held to methodological naturalism but I don't think would support philosophical naturalism even if he was of a mind to agree that it might be correct.The ones who agree with Dawkins are, in my mind, not those who simple adhere to methodological naturalism. Those who support Gould are the literalists who say if evolution is correct then the Bible can not be. They make the some kind of leap that Dawkins does. They seem to think that methodological naturalism saying something about the natural world can lead to conclusions about the supernatural world. They then let their philosphical SUPERnaturalism affect how they see the natural world. This is as bad as Dawkins letting his methodological NATURALISM affect the philosophical side and think that something SUPERnatural has been "proven". This is what the theistic evolutionists (and others whatever you call them) disagree with. They keep their philosophical supernaturalism and methodological naturalism separated.It is clearly very bad theology to mix up the two (philosophical and methodological naturalism). This is supported by history: saying that the "Bible says" specific things about unknown aspects of the natural world has proved to be wrong when the natural world proves to be different. It is also supported by the degree of denial that those who want to allow their philosophical SUPERnaturalism affect their view of the natural world. They must deny not only evolution but also physics (most all of it) and geology (pretty much all of that too).

If you are embarrassed so should I be. I had this pointed out to me here about a year or so ago. It isn't anything I realized on my own.