The good news is that you can carry on feeling all smug and in the know while I carry on dismissing all claims that come my way without a single shred of proof. You're no better than the average creationist, really.
(Creationism isn't a problem, I hope we don't fall into that American habit of mixing up creationism with bible literalism. I don't think many people would object to the philosophical proposition that there was some intelligent impetus involved in the creation of the universe, since it's no less absurd than that happening without any impetus at all. That's creationism. It's the idea that shit happened literally as per Genesis, that 6000 years ago God created the universe and populated it with all the plants and animals which exist today (or whatever) that's fucking stupid and deserves ridicule.)
I'm going to be awkward and point out that I used the term "creationist" in the popular and accepted sense of the word. Both the OED and Cambridge Dictionary back me up here :D
If 'creationism' meant 'bible literalist creationism' (as you suggest) then 'evolutionary creationism' (described near the bottom of that page), which is the position of the Catholic church (amongst others) would make absolutely no sense.
Yes, but like I say, I used it in the popular and accepted meaning of the word. It was clear from my context what I was referring to, so there's no issue of confusion is there?
Well, fortunately for us, there is no higher authority in language and popular meaning. You'll just have to group this with annoyances like "Photoshop to mean editing an image in any piece of software" and the term "Hoover" to mean any vacuum cleaner.
I don't think many people would object to the philosophical proposition that there was some intelligent impetus involved in the creation of the universe
me - I object
you know when you leave an Orange for a while and the outside goes all green etc?
That's us - we are the mouldy crap on the surface of the Earth, we shouldn't be here and it's all just a huge accident