A fatal logical flaw in creationism?

I wonder why I have not seen the "gap" explained in terms of the difference of the pre and post 1900 use of the word "ether"(aether)?? Humphries im a video explain that "einstein went back" to the ether and Bridgman describes the "instrument" insistence on "an ether" and I see not problem finding your said 'gap" in this one word over interpretive history time. Also if the instrumental side is stressed the concept of where in textu IC comes in seems nonproblematic to me as the philsophy can get quite complicated when the prgamatics of operationalism are integrated with the known empirical correlations. The ICR difference to say Johnson supported ID seems writeable in such a "space". Y'think??