On the current usage of the term "creationist" as applied to ID

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

I was establishing the basic meaning of the unadorned term

That’s what I’ve pointed out. The issue is, doing this excludes a large body of evidence contradicting your claim that “creationist” and “creationism” are incompatible with “evolution” and “evolutionary”, and excludes a large body of evidence that Intelligent Design has been understood as a kind of creationism for many years. So you were cherry picking, as I said.

@Eddie

Your points 2 and 3 are irrelevant. I was not denying any of those things, but they aren’t relevant to the context.

They are relevant precisely because you claimed that “creationist” and “creationism” are considered incompatible with “evolution” and “evolutionary”, when this is clearly untrue. They are also relevant because they demonstrate your claim that “evolutionary creationism” is a recent neologism, is also untrue. In fact these terms predate the term “Intelligent Design” by many decades.

@Eddie

The foes of ID never call IDers “evolutionary creationists”; they call them “ID creationists” – and the context in which ID is being attacked makes clear that “ID creationists” reject “evolution.”

Well yes, and there’s obviously nothing wrong with that.

@Eddie

Yes, widely used, as a polemical misuse; of course I’m aware of that – it’s exactly this widely misused term that I’m protesting.

Here are your two problems.

1. You don’t provide any evidence that it is a polemical misuse.
2. There is a great deal of evidence contradicting your claim that this term is confusing people.

@Eddie

From the beginning, ID’s foes were trying to paint ID as just another version of creationism.

They identified ID as another version of creationism, because ID people presented it as just another version of creationism.

@Eddie

Your track record of agreeing with atheists and materialists on most issues, both here and on BioLogos, is very close to 100%.

Thank you for the compliment.