I will readily concede that many science writers are incompetent or incautious.
***OK, makes sense.
I will concede that some competent scientists write rubbish outside their field of training.
***OK again, makes sense.
I would tend to apply the term apologetics to criticisms of science based on writings rather than on primary data or on widely affirmed theoretical interpretations.
***What? Here it appears to me that you’re trying to stick to a connotative meaning of the word “apologetics”, am I right? In your own words, “The pejorative sense of the word comes from defending the indefensible.” Why not just drop the useless word and substitute what you really mean, like I was asking of Coyoteman? The insinuation coming from evolutionists appears to be “You seem to be doing pure ‘defense of religious beliefs.’”
...to criticisms of science based on writings rather than on primary data or on widely affirmed theoretical interpretations.
***Please have a look at post #185 and show me where I have criticized science, or ignored primary data. That whole comment on “widely affirmed theoretical interpretations” is pretty much what this thread is about. The first guys to propose continental drift theory were going against “widely affirmed theoretical interpretations” at the time, but exactly what science was being disregarded? NONE. The fact that most scientists at the time didn’t accept the proposal is an indicator that using this as a measure is unacceptably wrongheaded. Science is not a popularity contest.
I know a fair amount about the history of this, because I took Physical Geology just a couple of years before plate tectonics was announced. The opposition to continental drift as based on the lack of a mechanism making it possible. Most geologists believed it happened; they just didn't know how. My class presented all the known supporting evidence (of which there was a lot).
Continental drift accounted for a lot of data, but didn't explain what was going on. Science was correct to be agnostic about a hypothesis that appeared to defy physics.
I don't spend a lot of time arguing about word usage, because words don't change facts on the ground. If you don't approve someone's use of the term apologetics, that's fine with me. I merely described what I think is going on. Anti-evolutionists throw up a huge smoke screen of arguments from consequence and arguments from misquotation to hide the fact that all available evidence is compatible with common descent.