I know exactly what you said, Rick; and you said it in a venue where people believe that creationists don't contribute a thing to science; despite the fact (or hypothesis) that they overlook the fact (or hypothesis) that theistic evolution is also a [mild] form of creationism as well, as I have demonstrated from Wikipedia.
No, AV. Your make-it-up-as-you-go-along equivocation games don't fool anyone. Theistic evolution is NOT a "mild form of creationism".
"Creationism" in common parlance has its roots in traditional theological terminology, where "creationism" had long meant "a belief in as divine creator." But we all know that with the rise of
young earth creationism, the average person in many English-speaking societies began to assume that "creationist" was a term referring to someone who holds to a belief in the creator described in the Book of Genesis. (So the primary meaning came to be equated with a 6,000+ years old earth, "instantaneous" species-by-species creation by the God of the Bible, and a global Noahic Flood.) While I may personally prefer the original theological meaning for "creationist" when I publish a journal article, if I were to insist to the average American that "A theistic evolutionist is a mild creationist", he/she will rightly wonder why or how I could insist that someone who affirms evolution could also think that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Of course, AV is well aware of these facts when he plays his equivocation games. But until I see evidence to the contrary, my best guess is that AV thinks that his sophistry on matters of basic definitions of terms will somehow be interpreted as intellectual rigor by the more gullible readers of these forums. But just as he has proudly proclaimed that "Science can take a hike!" and "Evidence can take a hike!", he will continue to seek attention by opposing and contradicting the most basic of facts---even to the point of re-defining common terminology so that meaningful dialogue and "teachable moments" on these forums can be as rare as possible. When one has no evidence and no logic, obfuscation is one of the very tools remaining in his anti-science, anti-evidence bag of tricks. While rational people will agree that well-defined, standardized terminology enhances communication and education, AV calls it "speaking in tongues." He even says that scientific terminology is part of a strategy of confusing and misleading the public. Perhaps that excuse for failing to understand elementary school science got a faint smile from his teachers but at the adult table it only prompts irritation.
But he is not alone with such games. Juvenissun told us that, "Science is a subset of creation science." That fact that NOBODY ELSE on the planet would agree with such nonsense is irrelevant to those whose goal here is to hamper meaningful discussion and education at every turn. Sadly, more and more of the general public associates such behaviors not just with young earth creationists; they often err in assigning such childish, science-denying obfuscations (and the far too popular "Lying for Jesus" Internet fad) with Bible-affirming Christians in general---even though most of the world's Christians have no opposition to the theory of evolution.
So these kinds of mockers and scoffers (which the Book of Proverbs denounces and warns us about) do more than destroy their own reputations for honest and reasoned thinking. Their behavior, pseudo-science, and disdain for evidence and facts (both scientific and scriptural) heaps scorn upon a Bible which provides no justification for their deplorable tactics. And frankly, those of us who respect the evidence to be found in God's creation (i.e., scientific data) and God's scriptures (the Bible) may indeed fully deserve rebuke for our failure to loudly and consistently denounce such nonsense and sin. Richard Dawkins has a valid point when he states that leaders like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort et al would not be so influential in American society (especially in Christian circles) if Christians were more consistently Biblical in rebuking their folly. We should oppose those who are "Lying for Jesus" and soliciting donations from the gullible among us. Even those who struggle with the scientific issues should NOT be hesitant to denounce the blatant lying. Even the science-illiterate among us can easily identify and rebuke the dishonest quote-mining.
We as Christians have been TOO TOLERANT of sin and ignorance for far too long.
