> What I've read was person after person informing you that the 2 choices you listed were insufficient.
Well, a line must be drawn somewhere. Else, we'll get peopel calling themselves "Creationist" because they believe that God (frat name: Bluto) will create the universe sometime in the future as a fraternity prank.
In any event: as with any choice, this one can be boiled down to a binmary system, so long as we can all agree with this: "A 'Creationist' is someone who believes that (a) God created mankind." Where it becomes binary is "...created mankind much as it is now/created mankind through an evolutionary process." Anyone who self-defines as a Creationist but believes neither of those things is in a distinct minority group, IMO.
No. Choices are not always binary.
I'll stick with my definition of creationist as one who denies Darwin's theory of evolution (and inevitably all other science as well). If the term also includes theistic evolutionists, then it loses all meaning, and allows the creationists to be closeted, or at least to claim that they're really not so odd, because most scientists would then fall within such a definition. Then we'd have to resort to using a new term like "full-blown creationist" or "creation science cultist" in order to specify the science-denial group.