Let me preface my comments that I am assuming since I can post here that I have permission to do so. if that is not the case, I apologize in advance and will quit the thread.
Science starts by introducing its own technical terminology, and providing clear definitions of it terms. Creationism, as you have described it, fails on this requirement.
A common critique of evos towards creationism, but is it valid? I would submit that evolutionist proponents share the same problem.
For example, there is considerable debate on the term "species", and the term "recapitulation" has been used by evos to describe 3-4 different theories. Even the word "evolution" is poorly or contradictorily defined by evos. Sometimes, "evolution" refers to common descent from a single common ancestor, and other times it is used to refer just to heritable change or a change in alleles.
Evos similarly throw out the term "random" without defining it and at times seem to believe it refers to different things depending on whom you speak with. Even the term "transitional" has evolved somewhat such that it can be used in various ways, such as referring to a direct ancestor or not.
So it is highly hypocritical for evos to criticize creationism on this point, considering the poor track record of it's adherence to this principle.
Edited by randman, : for clarity
™ Version 4.2