Victor cautions against lumping creationists together:
I’d probably not group creationists into one group. It’s hard to speak of them as a whole when they don’t really have a governing body or anything similar. I’m not sure if you mean the majority of creationists, the majority of people who view certain types of creation understandings in an ideological and dogmatic and exclusive way, or if you mean creationist institutions and organisations that have official standings.
I appreciate this sentiment, and I’ve alluded to it myself. I’ve also repeatedly asked us to treat creationists as individuals, also contradicting a monolithic image of creationists. But to clarify, when I say “creationists” I mean at the very least the 33% who believe humans have always existed in present form. I would also probably include the 24% who think a supreme being guided evolution.
It’s true that this immense, disparate group does not have a governing body. But that doesn’t negate the fact that there are times to speak of them together. Sometimes it’s important to discuss the differences between college and professional football. And sometimes you just want to talk football. And it’s okay to acknowledge the collective African-Americans experience as long as you treat individual black Americans as just that. I guess what I’m saying–yet again–is that we should apply the same standards and modes of thinking to creationists as we do to other large, disparate groups.
In either case, I don’t think it’s too unreasonable to use the term “creationists” because, well, we already do that! The very existence of surveys like this mean we already lump creationists together. Christians themselves also routinely make calls for unity. Granted, they would almost certainly not categorize themselves as “creationists.” But as long as recognize the limits, broad categories have their uses.