>Why should you or I let the NABT define evolution for us? NABT wants to
>attach a nonsupernatural metaphysical mechanism to a scientific model that
>says NOTHING about natural or supernatural mechanisms. They abuse
>scientific theory by making a metaphysical extension from it.
Was not the scientific model birthed out of the "nonsupernatural"
metaphysical philosophy in the first place? It seems to me that
Lyell-cum-Darwin's preference for uniformitarian historical concepts preceded
any theory of scientific model re: "the origin of species".
The root of the term Evolution is naturalistic and atheistic. You cannot
expect a bad root to bear good fruit. Technically then, Theistic Evolution
(Naturalism) IS an oxymoron. It appears the TE's are all flailing around
screaming "they have no authority", "they have no basis" for defining Evolution
as they do. Historically, they DO have basis, culturally, they DO have
authority to define E.
-- Stelar
____________________________________________________________________