I'm not sure we really disagree here. You didn't provide anything to suggest that "creationist" doesn't mean to most people what I described above. Instead, it seems that your point of contention is that the term ought not be used in that fashion. And if you're advocating that the definition be changed to deprive creos with the ammunition of apparent support from Christianity, I'd go along with that. However, the term is widely used by people on both sides of the debate, as well as those aware of but completely outside the debate. It appears to have become entrenched in its current meaning to the point that I suspect any such attempt would be an exercise in futility.
There is a point to people like me (who completely believes the theory of evolution but am an avid Christian) using the term creationist that you might be missing, because you are not the intended audience.
The fact is that discussions about evolution with the average anti-evolutionist bring immediate pictures to their minds that are very hard to root out. I had a discussion once with a FRIEND who knows very well that I am a teacher in a radical Christian community that applies the Bible's teachings literally, rejects private property, etc. Yet, when I tried to explain evolution to him, and was succeeding (amazingly enough), he interrupted me and said, "Well, I just believe in God."
I had to remind him that he knew very well that I believed in God, too, but it was as though he had forgotten it, despite how well he knew me.
Using the term creationist to apply to people like me and Jar (whom I suspect I disagree with on very many things about Christianity) actually helps the discussion with anti-evolutionists, because it keeps it on a more accurate plane.
I say that from experience. It helps. Otherwise, they forget who they're talking to.
™ Version 4.2
