If I understand correctly, predictions are said to be able to falsify an hypothesis, but not necessarily confirm its truth. So even when formatted deductively, i.e., it either is or it isn’t, if true it doesn’t necessarily follow that the hypothesis it is derived from is true.
Basically from what I can tell, even though the prediction itself may be objective in that it is true or false, it doesn’t necessarily make the hypothesis objective. For the most part, if confirmed it just increases the probability of the hypothesis of being true.
However, the hypothesis is an explanation and ultimately would only be objective if it were to somehow be deductively inferred.
As I understand it, with evolutionary biology there are admittedly problems generally acknowledge by scientists in regards to certain evidences. So at least to some degree or another I don’t think it would qualify as having all the evidence in its favor.
If what you mean by “agreed-upon” is how it’s generally defined in a dictionary, I don’t think I’m doing anything different than is common in discussions by narrowly defining my terms. If you are saying that I’m gerrymandering terms then I’d be interested to know the reasons why you think that’s the case.
And I don’t see how I’m rhetorically demolishing evolutionary biology or ignoring objective evidence in its favor. I think all I’m doing is looking to understand scientific certainty from a layperson’s perspective. I think clarity is something everyone can appreciate, especially when it helps to foster greater understanding of important issues.