[Alter Kaker]

Given your overly broad definition of what it means to be an "evolutionist," creationists are evolutionists, since Man changed following the Fall. Everything depends on context, and it is only in the context of their opposition to the prevailing view of a fixity of species that it is possible to call Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck or any of their ilk "evolutionists."

Given contemporary contexts it would be improper to use that label to describe their beliefs.

[Diamond]

Given your overly broad definition of what it means to be an "evolutionist," creationists are evolutionists, since Man changed following the Fall.

Devolution might be a better term for it.

Everything depends on context, and it is only in the context of their opposition to the prevailing view of a fixity of species that it is possible to call Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck or any of their ilk "evolutionists."...Given contemporary contexts it would be improper to use that label to describe their beliefs.

Yes, I agree that context determines meaning. As far as I can tell the term evolution has about 5 or 6 proper usages, depending on the context. It can mean anything from simple change over time to populations adapting to changing environments to organisms being related through common ancestry to "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.". The latter sense is its most popular sense, Evolution with a big "E". Which of these is inconsistent with the view of Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck or the dialectical materialism of Stalin or Lysenko?

Cordially,