That’s probably because you don’t understand what a scientific theory is.
A theory of science is a falsifiable theory. That is the only requirement. That means the theory itself can be tested against the null hypothesis of that theory. As long as a theory withstands such tests, it's a theory of science.
You are using the word theory in the colloquial sense and not the scientific definition of the word.
There is no 'colloquial' or 'scientific' definition. Semantics fallacy.
If a scientific theory doesn’t have a factual basis then it cannot be a scientific theory.
Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means.
Evolution by means of natural selection is predicated on three laws of nature.
No such laws. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is not even a theory of any kind. It produces a paradox. It fails the internal consistency check. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can be formed out of a logical fallacy. A theory is an explanatory argument.
The law of inheritance (the off spring of an organism will be nearly identical to their parents. You only need to look at your own children to see the truth of this fact. The second law of nature is the law of variation. The offspring will have some variation from their parents. Again one only has to look at their own children to see the truth of this fact.
Is that why a child has red hair even though neither parent has red hair?
The third law is the law of superfecundancy. That is all species will have more offspring than will survive to sexual maturity. Again this is a very easily observed law of nature. Don’t believe me? Go read this years infant mortality rate.
Irrelevance fallacy. No selection is taking place here.
The three laws of nature are not only as easily observable as gravity but they have as low a probability of being incorrect as gravity.
Math error. Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.
So no, I don’t think you really do understand what a scientific theory is.
A theory of science is falsifiable. That is the only requirement.
At the very least you would have understood that on of the other aspects of a scientific theory is that all scientific knowledge is tentative.
Science is not knowledge. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
There is always a probability that a theory may be wrong even if the probability of being wrong is extremely low.
Math error. Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.
All the facts of a scientific theory are never completely known.
They are all completely known.
They all have gaps and holes in knowledge.
No theory, scientific or otherwise, has any holes. A theory is not knowledge.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong it just means we don’t know everything.
A theory is not knowledge.
Then let us not forget that a scientific theory must not only have a factual basis
Learn what 'fact' means. All theories have a factual basis, whether scientific or otherwise.
it must but it must model natural causation and it must, in principle, be falsifiable.
Jabberwocky. You do not need to model natural causation.
So a scientific theory cannot use supernatural causation and be considered science.
Define 'supernatural causation'.
The falsifiability principle of a scientific theory is hugely important as this is what makes science self correcting.
Science is not 'self correcting', since there is no 'correct'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
That is if new are discovered that changes our understanding of that theory then that theory must be changed to account for those facts.
If a theory is falsified, it is utterly DESTROYED. It no longer exists. Any transcription into an equation is destroyed with it.
If the facts do falsify your theoretical model then you need to create a new one which will explain the natural phenomenon you’re trying to model.
Facts are not tests. Learn what 'fact' means.
So yea, evolutionary theory can easily be falsified.
WRONG. The Theory of Evolution states that Man evolved from 'more primitive' life forms. It is not possible to test this theory. You cannot go back in time to see what actually happened.
Just bring me over a dog-cat and by golly you will have done it.
No, you haven't. All you've shown is that you can cross a cat and a dog. It doesn't prove anything about the Theory of Evolution.
This is what a true scientific theory is.
WRONG. True Scotsman fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. A theory of science must be falsifiable. That is the ONLY requirement.
It provides scientists with an intellectual frame work in which we can model a specific natural phenomenon and make useful predictions that can be tested and independently verified by others.
No theory predicts anything. Science by itself is not capable of prediction. It is an open functional system. You must transcribe the theory into a closed functional system such as mathematics or logic. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. The power of prediction exists ONLY in closed functional systems. There is no equation for the Theory of Evolution.
In the case of Evolutionary Theory this theory specifically models speciation (it explains why there is such a vast array of different living species.).
Not the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution states that Man evolved from 'more primitive' life forms.
So no, I don’t think you do understand speciation and I will leave with a question to ponder.
Straw man fallacy.
If evolutionary theory is a falsified scientific theory
It is not. The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It remains, therefore, a mere circular argument with arguments extending from it. The very definition of a religion. Only religions use supporting evidence. Science does not use any supporting evidence at all.
then why are almost all the vast number of applied biological sciences predicated partly or wholly on evolutionary theory?
They are not. None of them are.
