If anyone else had proposed that topic, some smart mod would have stepped up and forced the poster to sharpen it up. "Please explain better what you mean by Neo-Darwinism" would have been one of the first dictates that would come to mind.
I'll be honest, I also felt this was a case of over-scrutinizing the creationist.
The use I made of ''Neo-Darwinian evolution'' was in no way any different then how it is used in the peer-reviewed litterature today. Nor is it different to how vocal Evolutionists such as Dawkins use it in their writing.
Does anyone question Dawkins for further explanations ? Do the scientists who peer-review papers not understand what is meant ?
At the end of the day, Neo-Darwinian is just a term to distinguish the modern-day theory of evolution with Lamarckian evolution, chaotic evolution, or any other type of evolution.
Back to the topic, seeing the reactions I certainly won't promote my own topics anymore even if I would have the right too. As Ringo said, it's to make sure you don,t have a beam in your eye. (Which seemed to have been the case here, since when I finished writing that OP I felt it was perfectly clear)