[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I just glanced at it, but one of the things that stuck out was his claim that creationism is against macro-evolution. It is true that some creationists feel that way. OTOH, others believe strongly that macro-evolution (if it exists - and thus far there appears to be less than compelling evidence for it) is part of the creationist schema.

As a point of fact, there is quite a diverse universe of views in the creationist world about evolutionism. Seemingly far more than the generally axiomatically lockstep viewpoint of the evolutionsts that creationists are wrong.

[orionblamblam]

> macro-evolution (if it exists - and thus far there appears to be less than compelling evidence for it)

Well, except for that otherwise wholly unexplainable fossil record...

[curiosity]

I just glanced at it, but one of the things that stuck out was his claim that creationism is against macro-evolution

You are quibbling over semantics.

Most people use the word "creationist" to mean someone who believes God created each "kind" of animal seperately. The writer is merely following this linguistic convention.

Thus when the author says he rejects creationism, he is not rejecting the existence of the creator. Rather, he is rejecting special creation view.

Now it is true that there are many who, like me, believe God is the ultimate creator of all things but that he used macroevolution as his means of creation. This view could be considered a "creationism" of sorts, since it affirms a creator. However, the term is not commonly used to describe this view, which is commonly labeled as "theistic evolution." It is the view of the author, BTW.

For the sake of consistency, I think it is prudent to follow linguistic conventions, even if they are not totally logical.