With the complicating little factor that when it comes to defining scientific terms, evos claim the *right* to to that because the terms define them and they are the scientists and therefore have the right to do so.
By that reasoning, then evos can make no claim on defining *creationist* as that would them be the responsibility of the creationists to define the term and set the parameters for its use in discussion, just as evos/*scientists* do with *scientific terms*
It is the height of hypocrisy to demand the right to define terms for your self and deny the right of others to define the terms that describe themselves.
Therefore, evos have NO right to try to define the term *creationist*, any more than they let creationists define the terms *scientist*.
All it has come down to is that evos have demanded the right to control the vocabulary and insist on everyone playing by their rules. It is intellectually dishonest to hold people to two sets of standards, forcing them into a heads I win, tails you lose situation.
+1
Full Disclosure: I see a great deal of disagreement among evolutionary evangelists (to coin a phrase) as to whether evolution requires, or is independent of, abiogenesis.
Usually it depends on who else is in the chat room or discussion.
If among the scientifically literate, then it is agreed that "of course" abiogenesis is not part of evolution, it is merely a discussion of "allele changes within a selected population and statistical effects of these changes upon the survival of the population and/or subgroups."
But let fundamentalist Christians show up and it becomes "science disproves the Bible, you stupid fundie, you don't even know what DNA is."
But that of course is anecdotal, and the plural of anecdotes is not data, right?
Cheers!