Yes, they use the term evolution for anything to do with evolutionary science. You should try it. Just say evolution with a lowercase e. No need to mention Charles Darwin any more. He’s been dead a long time so won’t mind at all. And don’t need to a Theistic in front of evolution either as evolution is neutral on the existence of God or not.
I may be a critic of certain arguments but that doesn’t make me anti-evolution. I have no issues with common descent of humans either. Your question about ID arguments is unrelated to whether or not I am anti-evolution, unless you see being pro-ID as being anti-evolution. I am pro-ID but I am not always in favor of the arguments I see. I commented unfavorably on Eric’s (mis)use of “Mutual Information” over at UD.
More on point for this thread, I don’t think evolutionists should get away with claiming that evolution is true therefore we don’t need to provide the details of how it happened. Better to admit ignorance than feign understanding. I’m sure you would agree.
Okay, so you affirm common descent but are ID friendly and ID critical.
Show me the link to this? I’m curious? Have you seen the exchanges with @EricMH here on this?
I can agree with that if it really is ignorance. To often, ignorance in the ID opponent is mistaken for ignorance among evolutionary scientists. In this case, you’d have specific precisely the part we do not know. We know much more than the ENV article seems to realize.
A historian would say Napoleon invading Russia is true. At the same time, a historian would not be able to map every single step that Napoleon took marching across Russia. Does the historian need to map every spot where Napoleon touched Russia in order to confidently state that Napoleon invaded Russia?
No. Do you think this is at all analogous to the absence of detail by evolutionists? How do we know Napoleon invaded Russia? If historians lacked that detail then they would not be so confidant that he actually did invade Russia. Some people think that evolution is a cause. It isn’t.