Note that this definition of evolution, however useful it might be among biologists, is not the sociologically relevant understanding of “evolution” when the topic of discussion is “creation vs. evolution.”
Indeed, Larry Moran’s whole article is premised on the notion that there is a “right” versus a “wrong” definition of evolution, when in fact, as is the case with all terms, the definition of “evolution” is determined by convention, convention arrived at by temporary or local needs and concerns. A definition of evolution couched in terms of “allele frequency”, for example, would have no use, or even meaning, in the era of Spencer and Huxley, whereas a definition along the lines of “descent with modification” would have been understood by any scientist of that era.
In popular discussions of origins, the relevant definition of “evolution” has nothing to do with allele frequencies or populations. It has to do with how distinctly different creatures such as dogs, bears, lizards, cacti, human beings, etc. came into existence. The creationist says that these beings (at least at the level of “basic kind”) came into existence by special divine action; the evolutionist says that they came into existence without any need for special divine action, as modifications of earlier beings. Thus, whereas for a population geneticist, any change in the frequency of an allele in a population counts as “evolution,” in popular discourse about origins, most such changes are not fundamental enough to count as “evolution.” Religious people who write about origins are not concerned about whether the change from brown to blue eyes happened by a natural mutation, but whether human beings arose from fish by natural mutations (plus selection, etc.). If you say that the development of red hair in European populations was caused by a natural mutation, creationists aren’t offended, but if you say that human beings arose from small tree-dwelling primates, they are.
It’s pointless for Moran or anyone else to say that creationists are using the “wrong” definition of evolution. They’re using a definition of evolution that is clear enough for their purposes, and is actually pretty close to what Darwin and the scientists in the first generations after Darwin (before Mendelian genetics was brought into the picture) meant by it. They don’t deny that red hair evolved, or blue eyes evolved, but they do deny that human beings had apelike ancestors (let alone fish ancestors). And that’s not because they are scientifically ignorant of Futuyma’s definition of “evolution”; it’s because they don’t think human beings came about the way Futuyma thinks they came about. Contra Moran, the dispute is not over misunderstood terminology, but over the actual history of life. The creationist has a different narrative regarding what happened, when things happened, etc. And no matter what people like Moran, Mayr, Futuyma etc. do now or in the future to modify the definition of the term “evolution” within professional biological literature, the creationist will continue to deny that human beings came from apes, fish, and unicellular ancestors.
(But Behe won’t. 
)