So, when I tell you that your not using a word as other people use it, then you go into how it doesn't have to mean that and you can use it other ways. But then when I go and use a word another way, you throw the dictionary at me. Don't find that a bit hypocritical?
Actually, the definition of intelligent design that I use is, in fact, used by a number of people. However, your definition of "creationist" seems to be pretty unique to you. If you peruse all definitions of "creationism," none of them will simply mean "the idea that life was engineered." Creationism is more than that. Creationism is a religious idea, one that involves deities and sacred texts. It is not merely the proposition that biological life was engineered. So, from my standpoint, it looks just a bit like you're labeling me a "creationist" as a rhetorical strategy. What exactly is your definition of "creationism"?
Doesn't matter. Did life emerge all by itself or did something make it?
It does matter, though. If life was engineered by the aforementioned metaphorical wrench, then we could plausibly detect this through the methods of science. But the idea that life was magically poofed into existence is not testable.
You don't know that. And maybe we could test whether the magic poofing results in purple smoke for some thing but green smoke for others. When things go poof, do the atoms form together from the surrounding ones or are they emerging ex nihilo? Does the poofer use somatic components, or is it by will alone? How fast do things poof into existence? How often? And so on. Just because you call it magic doesn't mean its not testable.
Okay, so maybe we could test the idea that life was designed by magic. But in the meantime I'll be concentrating my efforts on more tangible mechanisms of biological design.
See, some of you seem to think that design by physical tools and methods is indistinguishable from design by a magic wand. This is not correct. If life was engineered by specific mechanisms (e.g., rational design of proteins), then we can plausibly detect hallmarks of this within genomes.
What if the magic wand used specific mechanisms?
Again, some might want to explore the idea that life was designed by magic. They're free to do that. I know that
I won't be the person doing that, but hey, others might want to.
Well, the wiki page on creationism that I got to from your link has a list of Types of creationism. Not only is theistic evolution on there, but so it Intelligent Design.
I think it's reasonable to consider theistic evolution as a form of creationism.
My usage of the word creationist includes people like you.
Why?
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2