Where can be found the dictionary containing this definition?
Well the are philosophy of naturalism, and the theory of evolution are correlated rather than always concurrent...however the context of his post was the kid the article was about, who has made it clear that his version of evolution is of the dogmatic scientism kind which casually presumes abiogenesis and materialism as unjustified priori. Your nit is a distraction rather than a contribution to serious discussion.
I have no such dictionary. What I do have are many volumes of reference books written by evolutionists who help me understand their theory.
For example, since I have a personal experience regarding reference to George Gaylord Simpson (he was the Harvard comparative zoologist/paleontologist who was replaced by Steven J.Gould) -"Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity...Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."
Dr. James Trefil's summary of the evolution of life in his book he says the following:
Evolution of life on earth proceeded in two stages: chemical and biological. Life on earth must have developed from inorganic materials - what eles was there for it to come from? The first stage in the development of life, therefore was the production of a reproducing cell from materials at hand on the early earth...Once a living, reproducing system was present, the process of natural selection took over to produce the wide varieties of life that exists today.
William Provine said the following:
The all-purpose defense that Darwinists invoke what I called in my earlier address "Dobhansky's rules. the rules of positivistic science. That is they say that science is just one knowledge game among many, and the theists suffer no great loss if they have to go and play in another game called "religion". The problem is that the games do not have equivalent status. The science game has government support and theists and non-theists alike, are are to be taught that "evolution is a fact" existence of God who takes a role in cration, is false. If "evolution" has strong anti-theistic alike implications, the theists in the political community are entitled to ask whether what Darwinsits promulgate as "evolution" is really true.
Now, I can read and understand English. I have similar quotes from leaders in evolution such as Richard Dawkings, Hubert Yockey, Richard Lewontin, Steven J. Gould, all Darwinsts, evolutionist, metaphysical naturalistic, atheists....please do not ask me to type them at this hour. I know you have read those quotes on this type of thread in the past.
That said, I am fully aware there are those who declare they are theistic evolutionists, or agnotic evolutionists, or atheistic evolutionists. Their writings seem to indicate they are all physicalists. I am, likewise aware, that there are those Darwinsits who declare themselves to be soft physialists or hard physicalists. But their writings seem to dismiss, excepting gratuitous references, to a transcendent God, outside of the universe, not part of the universe, but separate and distinct from the universe.
I think asking for a dictionary definition is to avoid the point which I was making to Stormer. But if you wish to do that, I understand. Now, it is 12:00 midnight, and I have to get some rest. I have to pen and work about 150 Angus cows/calves tomorrow morning. If you wish I will read your remarks tomorrow afternoon/evening.