Does the evolutionary synthesis have primary utility?

Marcomony has a very strict view on whether a narrative in toto has primary or secondary utility. As an example of a narrative that has primary utility, one has to just look at the hard sciences. Any of the laws, that we use to predict how things are going to react, and any chain of evidence starting with those laws works. General theory of relativity has primary utility no doubt. 

However, add anything at all that requires parsimony in the chain, or is done with secondary utility in mind failing primary utility, and the whole narrative can no longer claim primary utility status.

Take any religion, for instance. All the major ones are self consistent and other-consistent. The parsimony of a God hypothesis opens up a myriad of opportunities for saving hypotheses for any plausible new data or information. Even if these syntheses/narratives consistently fail to show primary utility, they can lean on their protected status which has continued secondary utility. They can also lean on aspects of the narrative that *do* have primary utility as a counter to criticisms of failing to predict new facts. A catholic may point to the (theoretical) fact that General relativity is part of the narrative of the religion, and therefore can demonstrate primary utility. The overall narrative can not claim anything less than secondary utility if there is a single element in the chain of evidence which cannot demonstrate primary utility.

Things like the Weismann barrier - crucial to the chain of evidence of standard evolutionary synthesis, is not experimentally verifiable (it is not an isolated case). This, unfortunately, places evolutionary synthesis squarely in secondary utility zone, and we should have a multitude of alternate razors for those aspects evolutionary synthesis that don't have primary utility.