[Stultis]

To me, a creationist involves a lot more than just being "anti-evo." Indeed, there may be creationists who don't object to evolution theory in principle (indeed, I am such a one).

Fine. And I agree. That just means ALL Muslims are "creationists," including the liberal ones that accept evolution.

The objection, if there be any, is to the idea that life and biology are the result of a purely materially based, more or less accidental development.

And indeed this is the principal Muslim objection to evolution.

I continue to be mystified as to why, or on what basis, you insist that Muslims (or "Islamofascists") aren't "creationists".

How is the notion of Muslims (or "Islamofascists") being creationists "completely nonsensical" to you? Don't all serious monotheists accept some theological doctrine of creation? Aren't all monotheists then creationists?

In earlier messages, the best I could gather was that you think Islamists are not creationists because of theological doctrines they hold or sociological tendencies they exhibit apart from the doctrine of creation they hold. That's kind of like claiming that while people who play on grass courts qualify as being "tennis players," those who play on clay courts somehow don't qualify as "tennis players". IOW it's a completely arbitrary violation of the normal meanings of words.

[RightWhale]

purely materially based, more or less accidental development.

That is where the idea goes wrong, for both Es and Cs. It is not more or less accidental. We won't get far talking about 'material' until we begin to talk about 'material' per se.

[tacticalogic]

IOW it's a completely arbitrary violation of the normal meanings of words.

It seems the idea that there can be a "normal meaning" of words - ie a commonly understood and accepted meaning that everyone agrees on - has been rejected as being unreasonable.