Not necessarily. There's no weakness in language. It's rather your interpretation of the language itself. If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment. Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward? If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble. But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist. Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.
Subjective phrases are subjective to something. If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science. It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way. In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed. That's not propaganda. So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?
The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy. You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does. Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation. There's no back door to science. If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect. So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.