I use the word Creationist because that is the word that its adherents use to describe themselves. They have, in effect “co opted” the word for their own; just as liberals have.
My philosophy is quite liberal (liberty loving) but when accused of being a “liberal” for the sole reason of my confidence in the scientific method I don’t quibble over the meaning of the word; I know they mean it as an epithet.
The purpose of words is to convey meaning. You were apparently unclear for whatever reason what meaning I was ascribing to “creationists” and I clarified that I (and nearly everyone else who uses the word) mean and will continue to mean a “special” creationist.
And the Institute for Creation Research is filled with articles about evidence for a young earth, special creation, and Biblical literalism, and specifically rejecting any more general idea of a Creator God.
No you don’t. Out of a political objective, you use the term to distort meaning and description.
”. . . when accused of being a “liberal” for the sole reason of my confidence in the scientific method I don’t quibble over the meaning of the word; I know they mean it as an epithet.”
And, I contest your ‘special’ use of the word “Creationist” for the same reason. I know it is meant as an epithet. You can try, if you wish, to trivialize the contest by characterizing it as a “quibble.” Nevertheless, this struggle has nothing to do with the sanctity or the purity of Science. It is quite simply a fight over public money. You want control of that money without any say from the people you propose to take it from. That is as quintessential a definition of ‘Liberal’ as can be gotten. I really don’t know why you continue the fight with Creationists. You’ve already lost control of the public treasury to the Marxist/Socialist louts who have taken over government. Now go ‘quibble’ about that.
”The purpose of words is to convey meaning.”
So it is rumored. And to turn a word into an epithet, it is first necessary to destroy the norms and conventions of meaning (the Saul Alinsky method of political debate). That is what you’ve confessed to doing in acknowledging a “special” use of the word ‘Creationist.’ There are any number of different meanings of the word ‘Creationist.’ Each meaning is specified by the addition of another, modifying word. You refuse to follow that norm. I’ve asked of you an explanation, but, by now, the ‘why is obvious. You don’t intend to convey meaning – only epithets. I don’t expect to reform your behavior. Only to name what it is that you are doing. You are behaving like a Liberal. And that has nothing to do with your “confidence” in the Scientific Method.
My philosophy is quite liberal (liberty loving) but when accused of being a “liberal” for the sole reason of my confidence in the scientific method I don’t quibble over the meaning of the word; I know they mean it as an epithet.
OH MY! You've got it about as bad as it gets! It's just not the conservative position to side with the godless NEA, it's just not.