OK, I'll be first, "No I don't."
Cool, thanks. But I think your response actually reinforces my point instead of refutes it. From the rest of your post, it sounds as if you're not an *anti-evolution" creationist, is that correct?
Although I didn't use that exact term ("anti-evolution creationist") in the above passage, that's the specific kind of creationist I was talking about, which I hope was clear enough from the rest of my post. I have no beef with people who believe that God was involved in creation in some manner but who aren't rabidly anti-evolution, even though such folks could reasonably be called "creationists" as well.
The term "creationist" is usually used on these threads to refer only to the anti-evolution type -- I wish there were a more specific word meaning "anti-evolution creationist", but there isn't (that I'm aware of), and the "AEC" designation is really unwieldy (especially since the "AEC" folks refer to *themselves* as simply "creationists"...)
It depends on how one defines it. In the negative sense of the prefix anti--maybe I'm not because that's not my approach to things. Nevertheless, I don't believe in evolution, but do in creation. I DO allow for certain things in evolution and realize that is man's way of undertanding the creation/populating of the world's life forms. Oops--just about made the common mistake that many people do and assume that the Big Bang was evolution.
I can have discussions with both evolutionists and creationists and learn. That's my approach. I won't call them intelligent duscussions though because I'm not that intelligent:). I seem to recall that you and I have had discussions before so forgive me if I'm repeating myself.