Apologies, I thought you may have come across my caveat but I probably wrote that in another thread.
Here it is. When I use the term “evolve”, I simply mean that creation was done through a progression from a lower form of life to a higher form. But unlike true Darwinian evolutionists, I do not believe that this progression happened by pure chance. I believe that it was completely designed and that what we see as chance was actually built into this progression.
Apology accepted and appreciated. May I offer this suggestion for clear and honest communication?
When using a common word in a unique sense, the unique sense must be noted in some way. That could be in further explanations, or previous explanations. An excellent way is to use a different word or phrase, such as, (in this case, perhaps)
pre-programmed species morphing.
Using a common word in a special context is a common ploy deliberately used in neurolinguistic programming (NLP) by experts, such as politicians and salesmen fooling the limited minds of pinheads. (Obama’s speeches are riddled with NLP, as are Romney’s and Perry’s.) It is also used by sloppy or mentally lazy people, and, as in your case, by regular people trying to make a point which cannot be easily made otherwise.
While you may have mentioned your special use of “evolve” before, it is not reasonable to expect others to recall that, especially in the multi-faceted discussions on CAF. We do not easily recall our own lies, nor do we recall ideas with which we disagree— at least no longer than a semester’s final exam. That is why a straightforward writer will always make an unusual usage of a word clear to his readers.
I’ll wager, for example, that you have only a vague sense of my unusual metaphysics. although I’ve described the ideas in many ways on various threads. Likewise others who disagree with my ideas do not know what they are. That is why I frequently repeat things I’ve written dozens of times.
Besides, clear writing saves this kind of philosophically irrelevant whining, excuse-making, and follow-up whining, allowing us to quibble about the relevant points. Such as, IMO, your modified version of evolution. Although that version is widely shared by other religious apologists desperately trying to reconcile their beliefs with science, it is unnecessarily cumbersome. Contrasting it to the principle of Occam’s Razor, I’d call it the Catholic-Darwinist’s Bludgeon. Scientists with functioning minds laugh it off, giving it as much relevance as the explanations of Jehovah’s Witnesses as to why they are still practicing a religion which predicted the end of the world in 1933.
BTW, I do not place Darwinists into the “scientists with functioning minds” category.
Perhaps you feel similarly about Richard Dawkins’ thesis in The Selfish Gene, which is the equivalent of proposing that the purpose of humans is to perpetuate the existence of DNA molecules (which in the context of Darwinism is a perfectly reasonable conclusion).