Well, you didn't really explain your card choices and/or changes from an established deck. When posting a decklist try to explain the card choices at a minimum, and if possible write about it's matchups its strengths and weaknesses.
Purposefully not playing cards for budget reasons basically means that the thread should be moved to newbie.
On a different note, the deck seems to lack acceleration. You see, your disruption is extremely minimal (3x strips 2x forces) and you don't pack the acceleration that is supposed to make up for lack of disruption. Birds of paradise is nice, but it's one turn too slow (and majorly sucks vs fire/ice). Most of your spells are relatively costly (since you usually need to add G to survival them) considering the amount of acceleration that you play. If you play on a budget, have a look at lotus petal, mox diamond, elvish spirit guide, etc. To avoid a lengthy list of possible accelerants, have a look at the cards listed under 'mana accelerants' within the thread I started there:
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18568.
The other problems of the deck is that it *seems* to be reactive to opponents threats (hence, the whole toolbox that 'makes up for lack of disruption'). But your answers can only be gotten once you have that survival hit play -- and you can barely garantee that it comes into play, even though your deck relies on it. I can see that the eternal witnesses and regrowth are there as a 'fix', but the problem is that they costs you tempo (mana) just to get back to the point you were before. This almost means that you loose 2 turns if your opponent counters it (since you loose the original survival (2 mana), the eternal witness/regrowth (3/2 mana) then recast the survival (another 2 mana). You see, the more cards you add/play to get back on track, the easier you make yourself vulnerable to opponents threats since you need more than one card to potentially set yourself up. Combo deck have the same problem; if the combo take more than 2 cards to win the game, the easier it is for your opponent to break the combo (and I will make a brief mention that dragon 'feels' like you only play one card to actually get the combo).
Instead of trying to make up for lack of disruption by playing that many eternal witness/regrowth, you should consider packing more disruption so that when you play your survivals you don't have to worry as much and go for plan B when plan A fails. I can understand that birds and eternal witness have synergy with survival, but I think the deck needs more a survival than it needs the 'cute' eternal witness. And for the birds, well I assume here that you play them due to budget constraints (and need for 4/5 color mana).
The other problem is that your deck plays many colors. This essentially means it is easier to disrupt and more vulnerable to mana denial. I can see that regrowth/eternal witness can 'fix' this, but really it sounds to me like a loosing strategy. I do not see this deck as being able to become the beatdown, barring a quick shapeshifter. It's like it tries to answer everything the opponent can play (hence, control), while not really being able to efficiently get it's plan undisrupted. Without survival, it looks like the deck is heavily top-deck reliant.
I am sure that there *has* to be a way of making those living wish more efficient. It might be my opinion, but the only 2 things that I was impressed to see in the sidebord was gigapede (good choice vs control) and gilded drake. I can see that survival trumps living wish goal, but then, why not just cut them? Perhaps those 2 spots could be better filled with creatures in the sidebord (since there doesn't seems to have any lands worth mentioning (gemstone mine... why?)).
You run so few artifacts that you could consider running null rod even though it doesn't seems to fit in your plan.
Remember that in today's metagame tempo is king. The way I see it, survival is just a notch too slow (in the general sense, nothing to do with your deck). Survival is generally used to 'preserve'/keep the inertia of a deck, and keep the threats coming. If you are wondering what I'm talking about then have a look at TNT decks. In your case the survival *is* your threat (since otherwise your deck is top-deck reliant).
I know I am harsh, such is my nature. Please tell me I got my whole analysis wrong. There has got to be something that I missed out. Remember that the burden of proof is on your side.
-marton
