That's what I was explaining to shadow71. And now you're trying to argue my same point back to me.
No, I'm not. I am telling you that you are making an irrelevant distinction that has no bearing on this topic. The person that first used the term creationist did so for good reason and it wasn't a mistake. You then went on to say those creationists are a small subset. They are not. If they were a small subset, they wouldn't effect the education system the way they do and they wouldn't hold political office. They would be laughed at in the public eye instead of given voice to question science TV shows.
Anyone silly enough to call themselves a creationist does not confuse themselves and does not call themselves a creationist because they simply believe in a creator, but also accept science. People that actively call themselves creationists do so because they ....are creationists that believe in creationism, not science.
was referring to people who believe in a creator but aren't science-deniers.
Those people aren't considered creationists in this day and age, though. They are called religious. Or Catholic. Or Protestant. Or Christian. Or Muslim. Or Jewish. Creationists are called creationists. You know, the ones that believe in the creation myth and not things like the big bang?
When we just refer to creationists generally, we're not really talking about the people who believe in a creator but do not deny science.
Who is we? No one I have ever encountered, that is for sure.
Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
™ Version 4.2
