Naming Conventions

Subscript usage
The subscript x is used to denote that a user of the symbols design, pattern, random, evolve etc. hasn't documented in what type of PatternOrDesign sense the words are being used or that user of these semantic tools don't know what he is trying to say.

Tautology
The first four types of tautologies are listed in that order because most people of conflicting world views would agree on their definitions. From five to eight is wide op for debate and one's world view would influence whether the definitions are valid.
 * 'Necessary truth', axiom or logical validity Tautology1.
 * Tautological expression Tautology2.
 * Rhetorical tautology Tautology3
 * Logical tautology Tautology4
 * Truthiness-tautology or hidden tautology, combines a truism with saying the same thing twice Tautology5
 * Strawtology Tautology6
 * Questology Tautology7
 * DoubleTautology Tautology8Tautology used in such a way that the PatternOrDesign distinction isn't clear.

Evolution

 * Evolution1 Used by CharlesKingsley in his interpretation of Darwin(1863) in the "....absolute empire of accident...." or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness sense.
 * Evolution2. The sentence "...the engineer evolved the bridge...." would be in the design sense as theists understand design from their PatternOrDesign dichotomy world view.
 * Evolution3 would be the sense HoWard1, Wilkins and Dawkins uses it, they reject the PatternOrDesign dichotomy. HoWard1 would say "...the engineer evolved the bridge...." but means by that ".... designx is subset of patternx....."
 * Evolution4 - Wilkins uses natural, rarified , ordinary, non-complex and simple design (http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PatternOrDesign#Wilkins_on_rarified_.2C_simple.2C_natural_design), whether in Evolution1 , Evolution2 or EvolutionNo idea what I am trying to sayisn't clear.
 * Evolution5 Rejects 1 to 4.
 * Evolution6a Evolutionist that accepts Evolution3 but rejects the multi-universe theory.
 * Evolution6b Evolutionist that accepts Evolution3 and accepts the multi-universe theory.
 * EvolVere - Ontology or history of the word must be explored.

From a YEC theist perspective there is only a pattern(Evolution1) or design(Evolution2) distinction. He believes it like he believes the sun is shining and can't therefore be expected to "suspend" his religious metaphysical beliefs and enter HumptyDumpty space when engaging with non-theists. The theist and non-theist inhabit separate language realities, but the non-theist are using symbols such as evolution, selection which before 1859 was for used by theists to project their beliefs or world view.

From a YEC theist perspective there is only a pattern(Evolution1) or design(Evolution2) distinction. He believes it like he believes the sun is shining and can't therefore be expected to "suspend" his religious metaphysical beliefs and enter HumptyDumpty space when engaging with non-theists. The theist and non-theist inhabit separate language realities, but the non-theist are using symbols such as evolution, selection which before 1859 was used by theists to project their beliefs or world view. With the result that it has become impossible to determine what YEC, ID and atheist apologetics movements are trying to say. DavidBerlinski, Ken Ham, Dembski and Dawkins are deriving substantial revenue from books and seminars making it a disincentive to clarify what they mean with tautology, selection, design and evolution, since the words themselves have no meaning. A great way to make money from selling books is to have the YEC, ID and Atheist side never define their terms so one can't say whether either side was right or wrong after finishing "The design inference" by Dembski, resulting in the searching soul buying yet another book such as "The Devils delusion" by DavidBerlinski or "The God delusion" by Dawkins.