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.
First of all, the Creationists get to define what they are, not the evolutionists! A Creationist is not defined by what they are against but rather what they are for. A Creationist believes life and the universe was created by God. As was explained by others on this thread, there are many secondary beliefs and varieties of Creationist "camps" based on differing beliefs in how and when things were created. Most Creationists do believe that man was instantly created but may not all agree on exactly when and may not agree on the age of the earth. Most Creationists have no problem with science itself but just do not accept the philosopy of macro-evolution.
On what basis do you arrive at such arrogant condescension?
" Darwin's theory of evolution (and inevitably all other science as well). "
Now I doubt you are going to see Creationists calling for the banning of mathematics,physics,or Geology from the classrooms just because Evolution draws upon these for supportive tools and data. I don't think science itself would be threatened if Evolution itself suddenly were debunked....the whole of science would not suddenly be threatened if evolution suddenly disappeared from man's consciousness. Evolution is not a foundational pillar of science but it depends on other foundational pillars in science for its very survival as theoretical thought!