Evidence for “Creationism”

I've written many times before on how evolutionists and other skeptics abuse the language. They don't do this out of ignorance but rather they intentionally misuse words in order to obfuscate. It's rather dastardly because they're the ones who usually insist that other people use words according to how the evolutionists themselves have defined them.

One of their most flagrant abuses concerns the word, “creationism.” Now, “creationism” is a fine word and I have no objection to it when it is used correctly. Unfortunately, many evolutionists refuse to use the word correctly. There's an old saying that there are no stupid questions. However, whenever I hear some evolutionist ask, “What is the evidence for creationism?,” I'm tempted to call it a stupid question.

Words that end in “ism” describe a philosophy, worldview, or belief system: atheism, Buddhism, capitalism, etc. “Creationism,” then, describes the belief that God created the world. Get it? It's a worldview. It's not the same thing as “creation” even though many evolutionists seem to think the words are interchangeable. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard critics make stupid remarks like, “what is the evidence for creationism?” Don't they realize that, when they phrase the question like this, they are asking for evidence that there are people who believe in creation? Is that what they want? I know it's not. They mean to ask, “what is the evidence for creation?”

Why do evolutionists consistently use “creationism” when they mean “creation”? There's a very simple explanation. They want to emphasize the “belief” aspect of creation. They don't want to dignify the idea of God creating the universe by using a term like, “the theory of creation” so they will only refer to the act of creation as “creationism.”

Their stubborn attempts to conflate creation with creationism has given me more than a few chuckles. For example, try doing a Google search for the term, “there is no evidence for creationism” and see the tens of thousands of evolutionists who have made the silly statement. How ironic it is that in the midst of their heated disagreement with creationists, evolutionists will actually say there is no evidence that people believe in creation! Isn't that a hoot?!

Now, people who subscribe to “creationism” are called “creationists” - just like people who subscribe to atheism are called atheists. “Creationist” is a perfectly accurate and acceptable description, one which I welcome and use myself. However, besides their misuse of the word “creationism,” evolutionists also refuse to acknowledge the simple reverse; a belief that life arose via evolution is “evolutionism” and people who subscribe to evolution are “evolutionists.” Many evolutionists, though, militantly reject the label. Their determined effort to disassociate themselves from the term is still another source of amusement for me. Through gritted teeth they claim there are no such things as “evolutionists.” Oh, if only that were true!