[Right Wing Professor]

Yes there are mounds of data that people can use to support one hypothesis or another that attempts to describe macroevolution. Also, the work of ancient astronauts, the intervention of the Hindu pantheon, the frame by frame reconstruction of the entire Universe by "the Q," etc.

Sure. And don't forget last Thursdayism. Noen of these qualify as naturalistic theories.

The evidence for macroevolution is of course not just fossil evidence, substantial though that body of evidence is. It also includes genetic evidence which grows weekly.

One has to have a thoroughgoing set of tests being done, to have a scientific theory on such a grand scale as this

I'm afraid trying to impose a set of rules on science from the outside has never worked.

If you want to call macroevolution a philosophic theory set, that's being much more honest.

Evoution is a scientific theory; it has really nothing to do with philosophy. The philosophy of science has had essentaialy zero impact on science, and at its best is simply a description of scientific practice.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Last Thursdayism is ever up-to-date. It was revised Independence Day last.