Whoa. I'm not even religious, and I'm certainly not interested in frivolous theories.
I hope you understand that the scientific method carries certain untestable assumptions, e.g. we live in a positivistic universe, that have been proven false for literally thousands of years.
Let me ask you this: If you have a set of empirical data that appears a certain way, but a logical or mathematical proof indicates that your interpretation of the data is flawed, would you dismiss the proof because it is non-empirical?
The introduction of philosophy may render a theory unscientific, but in no way does it imply it is worse. The scientific method is *not* the highest standard for knowledge as it owes an extremely large debt to philosophy and mathematics.
I am not saying you are religious, just that the way you are describing this sounds religious rather than scientific.
I'll try to answer: If I have a set of empirical data which I interpret a certain way, and a logical or mathematical proof indicates that my interpretation is flawed, I would not dismiss the proof I would examine the analysis and try to find a new analysis which fits both the empirical evidence and the mathematical proof. Thus is the scientific method: generate empirical evidence, check to see if it agrees with the theory, if they do not agree then you adjust the theory.
I'd agree.
My problem with the theory of evolution is that it is born purely out of the scientific method which conveniently chooses to ignore, and in fact *must* ignore, any philosophical, mathematical, or other kinds of non-empirical facts or truths in the process of theory-making. And it does this despite absolutely depending upon certain philosophical and mathematical truths to have any kind of consistent methodology at all. In other words, the same philosophical and mathematical foundation upon which science is built is not permitted in the actually process of scientific theory-making. Hence, science is an incomplete methodology.
Edit: It seems that, based upon what you said, if you did formulate a new theory to fit both the evidence and the proofs, then you would essentially be doing the exact same you accused me of doing. Certain proofs negate certain assumptions held by a scientific worldview upon which the theory of evolution was built, so the theory needs adjusting.