quibble: To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.
I think I chose the right word.
He concedes the prevalence of the ordinary understanding of the word when he admits his use to be a shorthand for another and special meaning of the word.
I think you misread him. Saying that the most popular use of a term is shorthand for a longer term by no means implies the prevalence of another understanding of the term. You would need to find evidence of the use of "creationist" or "creationism" to refer to simply a belief in "the act of bringing this world into existence," without specifying when or how, to support a contention that the terms were ever in prevalent use that way. I don't think you will, because as you said, belief in the Biblical God implies a belief in the act of creation, so there'd be no need for a special term for it.
No, everyone doesn’t know that’s what ‘creationist’ means in these discussions.
Yes they do. Some are just pretending they don't, for their own reasons.
Your intervention in this discussion is an attempt to restore a political domination that you perceive to be slipping.
I have no interest in political domination. I just get annoyed when people disingenuously pretend that they don't know the common definition of a term.
I don’t recall using the term ‘evo-atheist’ at all, but if you can cite an example where I used it on someone who was not openly and avowedly both an Evolutionist and an Atheist, then they have my apologies in advance.
I will take your word that you haven't used that term, and I apologize for implying you did. That particular part of my post was more about the other person it was addressed to.
For your purpose, certainly.
”I think you misread him.[allmendream]
I don’t think so.
”belief in the Biblical God implies a belief in the act of creation, so there'd be no need for a special term for it.”
Oh, it does more than implies. It downright specifies it (see Genesis and other books of the Bible). There are any number of ‘special’ terms for Creationist ideas: Young Earth Creationism; Old Earth Creationism; Day-Age Creationism; Gap Creationism; something called Evolution Creationism; Intelligent Design. When you attempt to stigmatize the generic term with your own array of implications, don’t pretend you aren’t destroying the norms and conventions of meaning for the purpose of calumny and malicious aspersions.
”Yes they do. Some are just pretending they don't, for their own reasons.”
No they don’t. Some are just pretending they do, for their own reasons. (huh. Seems to work just as well one way and it does the other)
”I have no interest in political domination.”
You don’t?! You’re indifferent to the amount of public funds that are allocated to Science and Science Education, and to the policy turbulence that naturally accompanies public support? Forgive me. I do not wish to be insulting, but I have a very difficult time granting your declaration credibility.
”I just get annoyed when people disingenuously pretend that they don't know the common definition of a term.”
Then you should understand my annoyance with people who pretend innocence when they corrupt the norms and conventions of meaning for ideological objectives. I have presented you with an assortment of instances where the generic term is modified by other terms (and I cannot claim the list to be exhaustive), making your intent very clear. You wish to stigmatize all Creationists in the public mind by attempting to associate them with undesirable traits (‘Kook’, ‘fanatic’ and the like). I don’t propose to stop you from your scandalmongering, but I damn well can name it for what it is.
”I will take your word that you haven't used that term, and I apologize for implying you did.”
Apologies are not necessary. Since you have, I hope my recollection is accurate.
”That particular part of my post was more about the other person it was addressed to.”
That being the case, I guess you should have also pinged her to #214