Now, here's metaphysical for you!
You posted it before and I responded before:
"You post a definition that applies directly to the metaphysical nature of evolution and then merely pretend that it doesn't. Course, none of the little evos will 'get it' cause you told them what to think with your glib remark.
So what part of that definition did you not understand?
Do we need to go over the difference between *evidence* and 'interpretations of evidence' again?"
I'm not calling everything metaphysical, although I understand your need to characterize it as such to avoid admitting to the truth.
True science stays totally away from the metaphysical. It describes what can be observed and does not venture into speculations on unobservable past events. You are confused about what is science and what is not.
I'm all in favor of the scientific method has nothing at all to do with 'apes for ancestors'. That's pure metaphysics.
Again, I understand why you need to characterize my position as though it is 'against the scientific method'. You need to characterize it as such in order to preserve your mental paradigm.
Now, here's metaphysical for you!