I understand the shorthand but I really believe it goes deeper than just the shorthand and reflects the reality of the thought process. Isn't this shorthand just too heavily relied upon because the thought that it implies is imbedded in the process?
Definitely not. At least not to the biologist. Still, I cringe when I hear it on TV documentaries because I'm sure there is some young kid out there watching who will get the wrong idea.
Unfortunately, there is no quick and easy way to describe it, so if the description has to be used repeatedly, it will always be the shorthand.
Interesting question, and I do recall a journal article that suggested scientists make sure this isn't happening. But I know that for myself it's not, and I suspect that's the case for most others, who have just accepted that the driving forces of evolution have the appearance of being guided, and know they can model them such.
It's similar to people using the Gaia hypothesis for earth, perhaps...they realize that in many ways, feedback mechanisms make the earth behave like a living organism. Few Gaia folks I've known (other than some pagan Druidic types!) actually have believed the earth was "alive," but just used it as a shorthand and conceptual model.
Another thing is that I'm trained as a geologist to look backwards at time, and so it's natural for me to look at the end result and work back. Detective-show fans might like this process, but few others get to think that way in everyday life. And every detective-show fan can tell you that just because there are twists and turns in the process of scientific discovery doesn't mean the actual crime itself has changed. The murder occurred, and we are just discovering the process.