No different than I, discussing the merits of your indiscriminate use of the term “Creationist.” So why, then, have you been warned (twice)?
“Your post to me was all about what you thought of me.”
If it’s not about you, then stop talking about you. And it’s no less true that your posts to me are all about what you think of me (and mind reading, and implying motives, etc).
“Racism and Creationism are frequent ideological bedfellows”
Yeah, and Josef Mengele and the men who conducted the Tuskegee syphilis experiment where scientists. So, what? (and you have the nerve to complain of guilt by association). Following your lead, I am obliged to observe it’s not the person who is idiotic, it’s the “guilt by association” argument, wrongly applied, that is idiotic.
“one not need be a “Darwinist” to be a racist”
Even less so is a Christian (or a Jew) racist.
Illustrative of the principle of guilt by association, of which you complain so plaintively but indulge in so enthusiastically, we can describe Darwinism as a philosophy masquerading as a scientific theory dealing with ‘the origin of life,’ which serves as a ‘universal acid’ that ‘dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs,’ and establishes that ‘1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.’
The above description is a brief composite of the on record remarks of eminent scientists, acclaimed for their accomplishments, and enthusiastically endorsed by large numbers of their students and colleagues, not of Hitler nor of other murderers who use “Eugenics” as justification for their crimes.
“Other than your same little dance over definitions.”
The object of definition is to facilitate communication. What is your complaint? Do you oppose the facilitation of communication?
“Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b”
Not all that bad as a definition but . . . philosophically, what’s wrong with this definition? Scientifically, what’s wrong with this definition?
I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the universe. Do you?
The result of your same repetitive ad nauseum I have heard it a hundred times before little dance over definition is not to facilitate communication - as those that inhabit “Crevo” threads know exactly what is meant by “Creationist” and that I am not one by that commonly accepted and well understood meaning of that easily communicated word.
Supposing that physical means cause physical phenomena leads to further discovery and useful innovation because such means are understandable predictable and replicable.
Supposing that supernatural means cause physical phenomena leads to no further discovery and to zero useful innovation because such means are not understandable predictable or replicable.
That is why Science is of use, while Creationism is useless.