You are mistaken. That is not the attitude toward YEC/ID people, it is the attitude toward dishonest hypocrites. There is merely a large overlap between those two groups.
That’s why replies to Val, a YEC, are mainly cordial, but replies to Boris, an atheist, are mainly discordial.
A post was merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic
The ethos here encouraged confrontation of pretty much everyone. We have some Creationists here who manage to hold their own very well.
I’m unable to summon up an example. Were you just being nice or do you have some?
You aren’t trying very hard 
swamidass AllenWitmerMiller Art
We apparently have very different definitions of “creationist”. I wonder if any of the folks you mention would accept that title.
It’s hardly unexpected for a Christian to accept the premise that God created. There is some disagreement on method and timing. 
The disagreement is on the definition of “creationist”. If it means merely what you are implicitly saying here, then every Christian (every theist, in fact) is a creationist. That just isn’t how other people use the word. Private definitions result only in confusion. By the usual meaning of the word, none of those people is a creationist, and again I strongly doubt that any of them would self-identify as one.
In this context (purported “bullying of creationists and IDers”), creationism means:
The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism). [OED]
I don’t know if any of them would. But there are at least some people who hold very similar positions and would identify as creationists (my emphasis):
The term “Evolutionary Creation” was probably first used in the early 1990s.1 Theistic Evolution (TE) is an older and more widely used term than EC, and many people use both terms interchangeably.2 However, we at BioLogos prefer EC over TE for at least three reasons.
First, we prefer EC because we are, essentially, creationists. We are not mere theists. We believe that God—by the authority of the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit—created all things. Our beliefs about God and creation come first. “Evolutionary” is simply an adjective that describes creation and marks our acceptance of evolutionary science as the best scientific explanation we have for the diversity and similarity of life.
Note that they feel compelled to disambiguate by adding a word to the term, acknowledging that they are not creationists in the usual sense. But of course there are such people. I recall a science fiction convention many years ago, in which there was to be a panel discussion between evolutionists and creationists. It ended when all the invited creationists turned out to be evolutionary creationists, so there was nothing to argue about. Thus the problem of conflicting definitions. The solution: to be clear from the outset what definition we’re using. The usual definition, here and elsewhere, is clear. If you want to use a different one, as the “creationist” panelists did, you need to specify it at the start.
I’m with @John_Harshman on this one that it’s an unnecessarily confusing term. At the same time, I’m not going to tell people how to refer to themselves. They seem to be going down the path of reclaiming a cultural/theological position which others have done in different arenas. It could also be seen as an attempt to find common ground between the two major camps within the church. At the same time, even the EC’s will refer to creationists as those who reject evolution. In the end, they believe that life evolved and also believe in God’s providence, call it what you may.
That’s pretty funny. It’s probably just as well that no actual creationists were able to benefit from the appearance fees.
OTOH, what if Behe or Denton had been invited as representatives of the “evolutionist” side? I suspect a very spirited, if not acrimonious, debate would have ensued, but with Behe and Denton being opposed by the others, including their fellow “evolutionists”.
You forget the big tent. Behe and Denton would have bent over backwards not to annoy the creationists, who are, after all, their main constituency.
It does make you wonder where book purchases come from. Which camp has spent the most money on Behe’s and Denton’s books? I suspect it would be the ID/creationist camp for Behe and Denton. That is definitely the case if we are talking about lecture fees (if they even do those, not sure). However, I have often wondered the same for other authors. Have atheists or Christians spent more money buying Dawkins’ latest screeds against religion (e.g. The God Delusion). I’m not sure about that one. As an atheist, I have no inclination to read The God Delusion, but maybe other atheists think differently.
I was referring to the “evolutionary creationists” at that convention you mentioned. ID’ers consider them little better than atheists. Worse, in some ways, because they’re seen as traitors. That’s why the DI wrote a great, big book excoriating them.
You have to provide a warning when you’re going to do that. But of course it’s weird, cognitive dissonance there, since Behe and (especially) Denton are pretty close to being evolutionary creationists themselves. The differences are largely political, because of course ID is really a political thing, not a scientific or philosophical thing.
And that’s where we disagree. I think they are closer to the YEC’s and OEC’s because all three groups engage in pseudoscience that denies core aspects of the theory of evolution and instead believe that God directly intervened in a manner that can be detected thru empirical science. To denote denial of just one specific aspect of evolutionary theory (common ancestry) as a sine qua non of creationism just seem arbitrary and unhelpful IMHO.
I favour a definition the clearly distinguishes the good guys from the bad guys.
So now we have three mutually incompatible definitions of “creationist”.
Oh, just to be clear, there were no appearance fees.