This is an example of a creationist taking advantage of someone mucking up?

[the_ignored]

Josef

Eldon: “You’re arguing a point that simply does not exist. The theory of evolution at no time claims to explain everything in existence. It does however explain, quite well I might add, how biological, civil and social life changes. That’s all it does. No more, no less.

Not so; this is a tactic that I’ve noticed a lot of internet evolutionists/atheists try to use, i.e. limit evolution to just biological or social evolution. However, the general theory of evolution encompasses much more than that. See for example: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html.

Eldon actually has the right of it...go to any biology site or textbook and what he said is confirmed.  Creationists like Kent Hovind in that tract of his always try to say that evolution covers everything, including star formation.   No.  Evolution is a biological process that involves genetics and populations interacting with their environments. 

Now this

[R. U. Sirius]

The problem is that we use the term "evolution" to refer to so many different processes that it gives creationists an easy opening to exploit when preaching to the choir or the uninformed. While the term "evolution" itself is almost synonymous with biological evolution in common parlance, the fact that there are so many other processes referred to by that term can cause confusion among the uneducated.

[Sigmaleph]

Who is "mucking up", in this situation? Certainly not whoever wrote the website on cosmic evolution, they are just using standard terminology to refer to the way the universe changes over time. 'Evolution' just means 'change'; as such, it can be used in ten thousand unrelated contexts.

If anyone (other than creationists) is making a mistake, I would say it's Eldon, by overextending the reach of the theory of evolution. What's all this about "social and civil life"? The theory of evolution has very little to say on these topics, and only indirectly so.

Of course, the creationists are being much greater idiots by claiming that having a word in common means cosmic and biological evolution are part of some "general theory of evolution". But then, they are creationists: saying stupid things is more or less their job description.

[the_ignored]

Who is "mucking up", in this situation? Certainly not whoever wrote the website on cosmic evolution, they are just using standard terminology to refer to the way the universe changes over time. 'Evolution' just means 'change'; as such, it can be used in ten thousand unrelated contexts.

If anyone (other than creationists) is making a mistake, I would say it's Eldon, by overextending the reach of the theory of evolution. What's all this about "social and civil life"? The theory of evolution has very little to say on these topics, and only indirectly so.

True enough.   

The problem is that we use the term "evolution" to refer to so many different processes that it gives creationists an easy opening to exploit when preaching to the choir or the uninformed. While the term "evolution" itself is almost synonymous with biological evolution in common parlance, the fact that there are so many other processes referred to by that term can cause confusion among the uneducated.

Or the dishonest.