I see the problem here. Literalism in general is a slope, somebody gets to decide what is purely allegorical and what actually happened in history. I am talking about the people who actually believe that a guy spent three days in the belly of a great fish. The division is moved all the way over to history's side. My teacher treated Creation as allegory, not history. Others treat it as history, and we call them creationists.
Neither gives them standing to scientifically declare Holy Scripture a myth.
“My teacher treated Creation as allegory, not history.”
Yet we know that science has confirmed some of what is written in Holy Scripture. And your teacher cannot scientifically declare Creation neither as allegory nor history. Scientifically, it is subject to further discovery.
“Others treat it as history, and we call them creationists.”
Which kind? To which of the twenty or more categories of Creationism, besides the generic term itself, do you refer? And, which do you find offensive? Why do you choose not to focus your disapproval on that category, and instead choose to vilify a whole religious tradition?
Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, Gap Creationism, ‘Evolution’ Creationism (whatever that is), Intelligent Design, Modern geocentrism Creationists, Omphalos hypothesis Creationists, Creation science Creationists, Gap Creationists, Progressive Creationists, Neo Creationists, Creation literalists, Evolution Theist Creationists, Micro-Evolutionary Creationism, Progressive Creationists, Flat Earther Creationists, “hard core” Creationists? Are all to be held in contempt?
I know of no Christian who does not hold as a fundamental tenet of belief that God is the creator of the Universe. Do you?
“no opinion or belief is sent to man from God contrary to natural knowledge.” (T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7)