240
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + +
Well, they have to call them something...
: To your point above, however, the term "creationist" would ostensibly apply to anyone who accepts a creation. But that is not how the term is used, which makes it confusing. Also, it is often used in a pejorative manner as an expression of bigotry, making it unsuitable for enlightened discourse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)
: To your point above, however, the term "creationist" would ostensibly apply to anyone who accepts a creation. But that is not how the term is used, which makes it confusing. Also, it is often used in a pejorative manner as an expression of bigotry, making it unsuitable for enlightened discourse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)
::I believe that the term is correct, but others simply use it while voicing criticism (no matter how immature).
::(As an aside: While I'm not an expert, it appears to me as if a partial shift to a more precise term has already happened: I saw the term "Creation Scientist" more often lately, but that (obviously) only applies to, you know, scientists and not the average John Doe. It also doesn't solve the potential confusion about "a creation".)
::Fact is that the opposition has to call them ''something''. "Creationism" and "Creationist" seem to be the most widely recognized terms, officially used (for example) by the Northwest Creation Network.
::Speaking from personal experience, nobody in these parts of the world thinks that a "Creationist" believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief some other] story. However, if you want to be precise, then those articles could be edited to specify "Young Earth Creationist" (or "Old Earth Creationist") where applicable. It would be more precise, but on this site, it would strike me as somewhat redundant. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:47, 26 December 2007 (EST)