First let me sweep my hands and say "I agree.".
However - allow me Wittgenstein the thread a little and suggest the problem with language might be to do with a problem with language and that it all boils down to a language game.
A creationist objects to the notion that we (and let's face it - it's us humans they are most concerned about in this picture) descended from ooze and monkeys (hence, from goo-to-you via the zoo). If there were to ask a biologist 'what's that thing called which says we evolved from monkeys', after considering whether a pedantic correction was merited the biologist would likely answer, 'do you mean, evolution?'
And that's what they are trying to express a dislike for. And while precise terms are good - especially with the nature of the arguments creationists try to raise which often rely on woolly terms - we have to occasionally get over semantics and examine what the person intends to communicate in an attempt to progress.
And this is important because there is a rhetorically serious issue here. If everytime a creationist says 'Evolution didn't happen, cats aren't related to dogs' we get bogged down defining evolution in terms of allele frequency variations - it's going to look (quite justly) like we're avoiding the argument (for what it's worth).
And if a creationist tries to be more accurate and says, 'Macroevolution didn't happen, cats aren't related to dogs' it does no good to start harping on about how macroevolution is change beyond the species (speciation and upwards) so that technically even AiG now accepts macroevolution.
This kind of word game just makes it look like we're being elitist, snobbish pedants who avoid creationist's concerns as if we're frightened they've undone us...which is exactly what a lot of them are saying!
Of course - we should call bullshit if a creationist website, claiming authority on the subject at hand says
quote:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.
because it's plain false given it's claim for it being a strict interpretation in technical terms both of which are not true of what follows.
But let's be honest - a lot of people, and not just creationists have a brief bit information about evolution and we should certainly inform them of the technical terms. But I think we should be making an effort not to prove them wrong by showing how the technical definition of the words they are using undermine their argument, but by trying to convert their argument into technical terms explaining what you are doing, and then show how it is technically false even if it looks intuitively true in lay terms.
This is easy if the person is humble - and is very difficult if they are the kind to proclaim to have a killer argument that slays the beast of evolution once and for all.
Applying the same logic to your post - it isn't necessarily creationists per se that are your problem I presume but the ultimate source of their problems the -Authoritative Sounding Sources - That Aren't Really. So, given your problem is ultimately with ASSTAR allow me to address that briefly:
Many of these 'authorities' know they aren't defining things correctly or accurately. I know this because I know they've been told many times.
Whether those authorities are deliberately being loose with the language to allow coherent looking arguments to follow, or whether they genuinely think they are adequately translating from the technical to the layfolk is another issue. Given some of the definite acts of deliberate deception we've seen from ASSTAR, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the former.
I think the best way to rid creationist's minds of the stuff ASSTAR puts in, is as described at the start of this post. Patience and a genuine attempt to understand the meaning behind the words rather than pedantic derision at the particular words being used.
™ Version 4.2
