Really Linear, you are wrong. Alchemy is a precursor to chemistry just like evolution is (sort of) a precursor to modern genetics. But alchemy is based on facts in that regard, proven things, chemical reactions, not just theories.
Alchemy has been far more successful at proving little things than the theory of evolution has been. Funny you would consider it a pseudo science. maybe you are reading some weird stuff that has been done in the name of alchemy in witchcraft and areas like that, that is not really alchemy, they just like to call it that for some strange reason.
here's a tad of history about alchemy for you:
Turning Lead into Gold
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htmI guess your knowledge of science isn't everything I had hoped for. Maybe that is why you keep trying to figure out which branch of science is searching for God. There isn't one. That is called theology. It's kind of like... you want to use evolution or science to create an argument that says God didn't create the world but you never mention the fact that science has never searched for God. So, I don't really understand what you are basing your 'scientific' assumptions on.
But anyway, alchemy is to chemistry what evolution, shall we say tries to be, to biology, no question about it, Linear. Early chemists proved all sorts of things with alchemy. If evolution could do the same it might have as much respect in other scientific fields. But since evolution has never yet begun a search for god, only for fossils and stuff, where exactly do you expect your argument to go? You really don't seem to have any information to either accept, or reject, any evidence of God.
