All that is necessary for me to refute your assertion is to show one exception to your declaration. See Post #198: Creationism noun 1 the belief that the universe and living creatures were created by God in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament. . . . . . Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003.
I also offered, as support showing some historical continuity, Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937 and The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary.
New, not so new, old. Simple as that.
Wrong. I never said there was no possible other meaning for "creationist." What I've said is that there is one overwhelmingly common meaning. One exception doesn't prove anything about what's overwhelmingly common.
Creationism noun 1 the belief that the universe and living creatures were created by God in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament
Look at the end of that definition: in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament. Seems to me that supports my contention pretty well--I remember being surprised that you posted it. I was also surprised you posted the 1937 definition, which says "each new form was created by a direct exercise of the Divine power; opposed to evolution." Again, "creationism" = "special creationism."
And the 1828 definition you posted was for "creation" by itself. I'm not arguing that the term "creation" necessarily implies an anti-evolution, biblically literal belief; I'm saying that "creationism" does. I'm starting to think you just don't understand the basis for this discussion, since you're posting support for my position and claiming it supports yours. It's hard to know where to go with that.