Over at Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog, we've recently been having a go at Intelligent Design advocate Kirk Durston, and one of the objections to Kirk's propaganda was the two-faced way he insisted on interchanging the terms "evolution" and "Darwinism" (or, similarly, "evolutionary biologist" and "Darwinist") as I suggested here.
Kirk responded in short order, explaining himself thusly:
3. I make a distinction between 'Darwinism' and biological evolution or evolutionary biology. Biological evolution is a process that goes on in the real world and can be studied. Darwinism, in my view, is an a priori commitment to completely materialistic explanations for the origin and diversity of life within which any intelligent role is necessarily excluded. That is what I object to.
A reasonable position ... except for the fact that Kirk doesn't stick to it, as you can read in one of his papers here, where he writes (as the first sentence in Section B):
There are, at present, two candidate theories for the origin and diversity of life. The first is ID and the second is Darwinism.
Ooooooh ... that doesn't look good, does it, Kirk? I would have thought that the two competing theories were ID and evolution. Poor Kirk -- that's the problem with lying; you have to work so hard to remember your lies. And, when you least expect it, they come back to bite you in the ass.