The semantic trap posed as a "simple question" is the kind of thing I teach
law students to recognize. For example, "evolution" means any number of
things, and Darwinists substitute one meaning for another as convenient.
Here is what I say in my own words:
Where "evolution" means an unguided process, involving only natural causes,
that is responsible for the entire history of life; and where the theory of
evolution is established as effectively unchallengeable by a methodology
steeped in naturalistic assumptions; then it does have, and has had, the
effects described in my three books and in my previous messages to this
list. Atheists like Will Provine are not "abusing" the Darwinian theory of
evolution, but are carrying the logic that established it (MN) out to the
end. Theistic evolutionists are on the same logical track; they just get
off the train a station or two before the end of the line.
Bearing all this in mind, it is also true that "God can create however He
chooses, and is not diminished if His work in creation was through
'natural' processes." Of course this statement does not apply when it is
man who is doing the choosing, by philosophical rule-making.