"Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces."
No, naturalism merely means no intelligent design. Apparently you admit that mankind is a supernatural creature since man is capable of intelligent design.
"And, according to your definition of evolution invoking naturalism and intelligent design not invoking naturalism, intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology includes supernatural explanations."
I already explained that intelligent design does not require supernatural explanations because intelligent aliens could have created life on earth. They would be intelligent, use design and not be supernatural if they 'evolved' elsewhere.
"I am merely requesting a direct answer. Just like you've never directly said, "God did it," you've also never directly stated that under the accepted definition of evolution, evolution has occurred. To clarify, I am talking about evolution as fact. The theories of evolution all rest on this fact."
Let me explain again, the 'accepted definition of evolution' is a game where the word is defined to be consistent with observations and the same word is then used to refer to unobserved processes and events. This is a bait-and-switch game that naturalists are quite proud of and actually think means something. It is nothing more than a game, however and many, many people see right through it.
"Also, your comment in Post 220, "You like the game now that the shoe is on the other foot?", indicates that you are playing the game even though you don't like it. It baffles me that you choose to continue."
Lots of things baffle you. Why stop now?
There is nothing wrong with assigning a word to represent an occurrence (i.e. defining a word to be consistent with observations.) For example, let’s say that I go to a gym and I see a person in a squat position with his hands on a weighted bar that is resting on the floor. A second later, the bar is over his head, and one a second afterward, he squats up. I have just observed this person executing what is known as a snatch. The snatch is defined as a movement where the bar is explosively driven over the head in one movement. Based on my observation, the person did just that. Am I wrong to say that he did a snatch because I used a word that is defined to be consistent with an observation and is also used to refer to unobserved events (i.e. other people snatching in gyms that I’ve never been to)? No, he did a snatch because he moved the bar over his head in one movement. What he did fits the definition, therefore he did it.
Evolution is defined as “change in allele frequencies of a population over time.” We see this with the moths and bacterial populations that are no longer susceptible to certain antibiotics. Because the allele frequencies of the moth and bacteria populations changed over time, evolution occurred. All the reasoned arguments, papers, and experiments in the world from persons far more intelligent than I cannot convince you that under the accepted definition of evolution, not your definition, evolution has occurred.
Intelligent design is also a game under your definition of evolution, for it is defined to be consistent with observations and is then used to refer to unobserved processes and events.
Lots of things do baffle me. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Are you?