Is there a new term we could use that would make more sense?
John Harnett writes
Science has become the new religion. Those who dare challenge the dictates of ‘science’ are often declared crackpots, pseudo-scientists or just plain crazy. If you deny or doubt evolution, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now called ‘climate change’, or the effectiveness or safety of certain vaccines, or the universal safety of genetically modified foods, as compared with natural breeding and hybridization practices, you are called nasty names. These might include ‘flat-earther’, particularly if you deny Darwinian evolution.
It has come to a point now that to be called a ‘creationist’ is a big negative, like you are a pseudo-scientist, or follower of astrology, or witch doctors, etc. Such a person is thinking irrationally and cannot be trusted according to the new paradigm.
Yes, but the term also doesn’t make sense any more.
As I said earlier:
Further to “Everybody you don’t like is a “creationist” these days, it is outrageous how people are just plain poaching the “creationist” brand.
It was bad enough that people called Mike Behe a creationist (Stephen Jay Gould did), even though Behe doesn’t think acts of creation occurred. Same thing happened to Platonist Michael Denton and, oh yeah, agnostic David Berlinski.
They caught the creationist cooties, somehow. Big “today in science” thesis in that, doubtless.
Then atheist mathematician Peter Woit got called a creationist because he thinks multiverse nonsense is, well,nonsense. As we said at the show trial, “creationist” is the new skeptic.
If I were a stock broker, I would advise “Have some ‘creationists’ in your portfolio.”
Update: Jerry Coyne called Simon Conway Morris a creationist in 2009.