Scientific "Creationism"

I think I'm going to object to the word "creationism" from now on. Ordinarily I'm fine with the word when used correctly. But many evolutionists, especially the folks at TalkOrigins.org (TO) abuse the term. I've even heard folks make comments along the lines of "do you believe in creationism?". Do you understand that words ending in "ism" describe beliefs (i.e. atheism)? So it's kind of like saying, "do you believe in a belief in creation."

Consider this quote from TO:

"Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it."

Evidence for creationism would be my posts on this blog. I have demonstrated that there are people (me in particular) who believe in creation - hence it is evidence for creationism. Now, if TO is asking for evidence for a divine CREATION, then why don't they ask for that?

I know why people do it; it's because they want to emphasize the belief part - divine creation isn't an event just a belief. I believe there is gravity - is that gravityism? I believe the earth is a sphere - is that spherism?

When considering the origin of man we are either here by the purpose of some type of Creator or we're here by natural processes. If I believe it's by a Creator, that's creationism. On the other hand, if someone believes it's via evolution, that's evolutionism. Why will evolutionists use one term but shun the other?

They can't have it both ways. If there is creationism, there is also evolutionism. Use the terms correctly or stop using them.