Homology: A shared trait in different taxa, originally derived in a common ancestor. For a creationist, this would be a shared trait (in two or more taxa) derived within a baraminic lineage. (For shared ancestral traits within all members of a baraminic lineage, see Plesiomorphy.)
Analogy: A shared trait in different taxa independently derived. Within evolutionary biology, this would be in taxa that do not share a close common ancestor; within creation biology, this would be in taxa in separate baraminic lineages. For a creationist, there can be analogy by design (separate baraminic lineages share an intrinsically designed ancestral trait), or analogy by derivation (separate baraminic lineages have taxa with derived traits similar in form or function). Myrmecophagy (ant- and termite-feeding) is found in sloth bears, pangolins, and aardvarks, so a long, prehensile tongue is analogous between these animals. (See also Convergence below.)
Plesiomorphy: An ancestral trait shared by all or most members of a clade, but one that cannot be used to distinguish or define taxa. For a creationist, common design does not denote a plesiomorphic trait. All penguins have feathers, so feathers would be plesiomorphic within penguins, as all penguins share a common ancestor and that ancestor had feathers. But, though hummingbirds and penguins both have feathers, those two lineages do not share a common ancestor. For an evolutionist, feathers are plesiomorphic in hummingbirds and penguins; for a creationist, they are not—they would be analogous by design.
This latter point leads to a gap in creationist terminology. I have not encountered a specific creationist designation for an ancestral trait that would be considered plesiomorphic by evolutionists, but involving more than one baraminic lineage. After some brief discussion and input from Michael Belknap, schediomorphy is here suggested as a baraminic term denoting a designed form or feature of ancestral condition commonly found across multiple baramin.