Sorry about the delay in response, but there does seem to be some confusion here, and I didn't want to make it worse. So maybe we can do a quick recap on some of the ideas, seeing if/where we are on the same page?
We start with Kepler, and his observations that lead to his three laws for elliptical orbits. Newton comes along, and says that we get those laws from an inverse square force. Newton does not a have mechanism for this force, but that inverse square force does seem to predict orbits of planets and comets pretty well.
Here we get to Einstein's curved space, Wal Thornhill's dipole model, LeSage's pushing gravity,etc, all as models to explain the mechanism for that inverse square force.
In the meantime, we find that galactic rotation curves, the expansion of the universe, the rotation of Gould's Belt, etc, can not be explained by inverse square gravity alone. So we get ideas of dark matter and dark energy, to balance the gravity only equations. We also get MOND (the idea that maybe gravitational forces don't remain inverse square at huge distances) . We get the reawakening of the pushing gravity idea ( which predicts a finite range for gravity). We also get the idea that maybe electromagnetic forces are acting. Finally, there is the question of redshifts, which makes some wonder if we are even observing correct velocities in the first place.
Here is where Michael Shermer comes in, and makes those comments about how well the mainstream can predict orbits in our solar system. He is smart enough to stay away from the larger scale where everything seems to break down, and sticks to the solar system scale, where gravity "seems" to work.
The problem is, gravity does not explain everything even in solar system orbits. Here I was disappointed that Wal Thornhill did not point out to Michael Shermer the flyby anomaly, or the anomalous acceleration problem for spacecraft. The short of it is, spacecraft don't appear to obey strictly the inverse square law.
Also, there is the Titius-Bode law, which has no mechanism in the gravity only model. Here is where Donald's Scott's filament model comes in. His model is a model of magnetic fields only, and he tries to use it to explain Titius Bode. His model also explains the relationship between inclination and eccentricity for orbits, which has at least two different and conflicting ad hoc explanations in the mainstream model.
Let me break in here with one clarification: Wal's model is a mechanism for gravity. Don's is a model for magnetic fields, which may work with or instead of gravity. In other words, the two models don't confirm or conflict with each other.
Michael Shermer knows there are problems with the gravity only model on the large scale, and focuses the argument on the solar system scale. But even here, we need a force working in addition to gravity to explain the spacecraft orbits. Michael is obviously unaware of this, and the EU team did fail to bring that up. With Titius-Bode, gravity only orbits seem to work for planets, but we need a mechanism to show why only some of the allowed gravity only orbits seem to appear. Here Donald did show why this happens, but Michael was obviously not paying attention.