Please read through the entire post before responding. I am making a point here, but it takes a bit to get to it. It explains why I use the wording I use.
A theory is an assertion.
No. A theory is an explanatory argument. I will show why below.
A science theory/model is a falsifiable assertion.
No. A theory of science is falsifiable. Other than that, it is no different from any other theory (including those that became religions). I will show why below.
Assertions are neither explanations nor arguments.
A theory is both.
Every theory has predicates.
Every theory has a conclusion based on those predicates. (These two characteristics make every theory an argument)
Every theory is explaining something. That is no different with any theory of science. Take F=mA, for example. Newton didn't just come up with this theory in a vacuum. It is an explanation of observed phenomena and a coalition of existing theories into one.
You really should learn the history of various theories of science and how they came to be. NONE of them were developed in a vacuum. NONE of them are simple assertions that are just made with no explanation of something.
A prosecutor will present his theory/theorem (assertion) to the jury.
At that point it becomes incumbent upon him to form a valid argument that results in the theory/assertion being concluded, otherwise his theory/assertion is rejected and the accused is presumed innocent. The prosecutor is responsible for explaining all aspects of the argument to the jury's satisfaction in order to transform the valid argument into a sound argument, for the jury to accept concluding the assertion/theory as being correct.
Oops. You forgot the requirement of a crime that has to be explained. Any prosecutor presenting an assertion that doesn't have a crime to explain isn't going to get far! This is actually one of the biggest reasons that much of the persecution of Trump by Democrats doesn't really stick. They simply assert a 'crime' where no crime occurred. There is nothing to explain.
A scientist will present his falsifiable theory/theorem (assertion) to the public.
Not a simple assertion. ALL theories are explaining something...even theories of science, which explain some observed phenomena, or combines other theories based on that.
At that point it becomes incumbent upon the public to show that it is false, and all are empowered to do so if they can.
Fine.
The scientific method, a systematic battery of tests, is applied in an attempt to show the assertion false.
No 'systematic battery of tests'. ANY test that shows the theory is wrong will work. ANY single test.
After internal and external consistency is tested,
Internal consistency checks are NOT part of science, but of logic. ALL theories, both nonscientific theories and theories of science, must pass the Internal Consistency Check, or it's not a theory at all. It's a fallacy.
External consistency checks are part of logic, but also discuss the requirements of theories of science. This is nothing more than an expression of set exclusivity among theories of science (or anything else that makes use of such exclusivity).
an hypothesis is cherry-picked (devised, hand-crafted) that seemingly has the best chance at showing the assertion to be false.
You are describing a test, not a hypothesis. Tests are against the null hypothesis of a theory.
If the assertion is not falsified, the theory/assertion remains as science.
WRONG.
Anyone can make a simple assertion. That does NOT make it a theory of science by any means. Example:
I can simply assert that a god exists. That is not a theory of science. It is nothing more than a simple assertion. I don't even have to explain what this 'god' is. Note that this assertion doesn't explain anything at all.
According to your reasoning, this assertion is automatically part of the body of science until someone can prove it False.
Obviously, this line of reasoning results in an attempt to force a negative proof, a fallacy. Science is not based on any fallacy or fallacious reasoning.
As Newton developed F=mA, he was explaining why observed cannonballs or even a thrown stone or ball followed a parabolic curve, why Galileo's measurements were so consistent, why other things seem to fall straight to ground, and why the planets followed their regular courses (from Kepler) and saw he could combine them all into a single relationship.
I hate to splash you with cold water, but Newton's law F=mA accurately predicts that a mass of 10kg will accelerate at 10 meters/second^2 in the direction of an applied force of 10 Newtons, as a direct effect of that specific cause.
Circular argument fallacy. You cannot use the conclusion as a cause in a theory of science. You just violated the internal consistency check.
The prediction never explains why this will happen, just that you should bet your money on it, and that you should rest assured developing your technology based on the belief that this will always be the result.
Narrow thinking. The explanation why a theory states what it states is NOT based on the theory itself. That forms circular reasoning.
You will never, ever, ever, know why this happens ... only that it will, each and every time.
Correct. Newton observed the phenomena of gravity's effects, created a relationship to explain it, but never attempted to explain what caused gravity itself. He simply accepted that it exists as a force of nature. Once this theory is in place, a question becomes: what OTHER forces of nature are there? How many? This sort of question was never really brought up with such focus before Newton's theory of motion (and also his theory of gravitational attraction).
Explanations, and questions of "why" are not in the purview of science;
But they are. EVERY SINGLE THEORY of science is explaining something. Either observed phenomena, or how existing theories (based on that) fit together into a single relationship.
Again, I urge you to study the history of science, how these theories came into being, and the fascinating stories behind them. NONE of these theories are just an assertion made in a vacuum.
however, if you know any Christians or other religious people, they are better suited to address such questions and to offer such explanations.
Religion is not science. You already know that. BOTH use theories, however. BOTH use those theories to explain various phenomena. The big difference is that a theory of science can be tested to see if it's wrong. A nonscientific theory (which all religions are based upon), cannot. This is the sole difference.
I realize that it is common for people to use wording to the effect of science "explaining why things are."
That is exactly what science does. It is also exactly what religion does.
The sole difference between them is that theories of science are falsifiable. They can be tested to try to break the theory. A nonscientific theory cannot. All religions are based on some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. Many of these are theories, just no theories of science.
Unfortunately, science is just a collection of models, which are assertions, and can neither argue nor explain.
No. The model is the noun. The theory is the verb, using the model to represent a snippet of the universe the theory is explaining. The model AND the theory are specifically created for the purpose.
They predict nature through mathematically/formally-expressed relationships/constraints.
Models don't predict anything. Theories don't predict anything. Prediction is not possible in an open functional system (such as science). The theory MUST be transcribed (or created within) a closed functional system to gain the power of the formal proof and the power of prediction that comes with it. Mathematics, of course, is such a closed functional system and has within it the power of prediction and the power of the formal proof. One comes with the other.
Whereas I don't prefer your wording, I totally agree with your point.
I realize you don't prefer my wording, but this wording comes from the English language, logic, and philosophy. Philosophy, I might point out, that you have already agreed to it's reasoning.
The purpose of science is to predict the effect of a cause, i.e. cause-->effect, and that requires the model to be unambiguous, i.e. expressed mathematically or otherwise formally in some manner. Technically, science is currently being expressed in SysML and displayed in parametric diagrams in efforts to develop technology, as one example (although it's still math at its base).
And here it is, all hanging out pink and naked. Theories of science predict a cause->effect. They are explaining why the cause->effect takes place! Once inside mathematics, a closed functional system, the power of prediction of that cause->effect becomes possible.
Technology, however, is NOT science. It certainly makes use of it, but it itself is not science. Engineering is not science. Technology is the result of engineering.
This is just another face of the warmizombie tactic of lifting bogus charts and graphics off the internet and presenting them as trump cards to win some sort of religious argument. "Hey, didn't you see the chart I posted? That debate is over!" "Hey, didn't you see the artwork I posted? All other achievements of humanity have been discarded in shame!"
This you have pegged exactly. We have seen this so many times before. This kind of behavior is mostly a collection of buzzword fallacies (they don't even know what their magick phrases even mean most of the time!). It also makes use of redefinition fallacies (including redefining some theory of science to some nightmare bastardization by adding or deleting or arbitrarily changing units of a relationship to take it out of context). Contextomy fallacies are also common, of course, since the theory redefinitions are often based on that. They then finish off with a circular argument fallacy showing their 'proof' (which is only based on fallacies itself) that their theory is True.
Discussions of Bessler wheels, Global Warming, Ozone Holes, Magick Bacteria and the I'm a Famous Scientist types (and others that like to puff themselves up using 'scientific' buzzwords), Perpetual Motion Machine types, etc. ALL do this. We have seen it. You and I have seen these types for years.
Yes. It does get old. I frankly don't blame you for getting particularly snarky with them. Some of your memes are getting particularly good!
This thread has been wildly successful. It was flypaper that caught Rightwing trolls who claim scientific literacy, and exposed them as scientific illiterates 
