Maybe this would be a good opportunity to define what an *evolutionist* for all the evos, since they seem to feel free to define what a creationist is for us.
By *evolutionist* we mean one who believes in a random mutation, natural selection, no intelligence allowed, no room for God, everything just happened out of nothing for no reason paradigm.
The evolutionist is one who is a hard core militant, God hating atheist who shows nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn’t follow their belief system and consigns all who disagree to working at McDonald’s for the rest of their lives. (atheist hell, no doubt). Dawkins is their hero and figurehead, whom they believe no matter how much *Lying for Science* he does.
But hey, it’s all good. They don’t have to worry about violating any moral code, as they have nothing to base it on anyway, they can’t be accused of being hypocrites.
Do try to remember that the creationists at creationist.org, creationists.org, and creationism.org, as well as the author of Evolution of a Creationist, define "creationist" the same way I do. You yourself recently wrote, "Belief in creation is still ahead of belief in evolution," explicitly defining a "belief in creation" as something opposed to a "belief in evolution." It seems like you're happy with my definition of creationist until you see a chance to score rhetorical points.
Geee, that seems as good a place to start as any metmom, perhaps we could add they smear anyone that disagrees with them as anti-science bible thumpers or koran thumpers, as anyone that dares not agree with them is a religious zealot and we can work from there.
Not that it makes much difference as the definition is subject to change on a whim anyway.
And just think with this ying/yang lunacy approach they can define creation everytime they define evolution with relative ease!
dark/light
night/day
good/evil
black/white
smart/dumb
educated/stupid
science/anti-science
just ignore the conservative/liberal elephant in the room huh? :)