Roger Stanyard writes:

In the Islamic word, creationism isn't the same thing as amongst fundamentalist Christians. Different beast altogether. As far as I can make out, Islamic creationism is not based at all on the young age of the earth and accepts the big bang.

Tell you what, how about we have a word for the set of all these variants of creationism, including that "different beast altogether" Islamic creationism. How about this word includes all beliefs in which man was created by God in man's current form (as opposed to evolving from earlier life). And how about we use a word such as, hmm, I dunno, how about "creationism"?, that seems to fit.

Your stance seems to me akin to insisting that Christianity was founded in England in the 1700s by Charles Wesley, and that the word "Christianity" can only be used for products of that revival, and that any other forms of Christianity are "different beasts altogether".

" ... most Christians ... would have believed that humans were specially created by God in their present form. ... And in what way is it unreasonable to call that view "creationism" ...?"

Yes, very, very unreasonable.

Fine, we'll have to agree to differ on that. I'm going to continue using "creationism" to refer to all beliefs that man was created by God in man's present form, regardless of which flavour of religion they spring from.

Creationism claims to be based solely on science; ...

Claims, yes indeed. And as with nearly all creationist claims they're simply wrong.

Back to Hitler's education - I've never seen the slightest evidence that he was taught that evolutionary biology was wrong or was systematicaaly surpressed by the RCC in his school.

Most likely there was no teaching about evolution at all at that level, either for or against (this was 1900 after all), leaving kids by default with the traditional Christian pre-scientific account based on Genesis.

It's irrelevent what people beleived before modern science developed.

Considering that in 1900 or so these modern scientific developments would not have made it as far as most secondary-school classrooms, it is indeed relevant.

... the real issue is whether they [Christians/Catholics] reject evolutionary biology ...

This issue here is not whether they do today, but whether they did around 1900. And to a large extent it wasn't so much about "rejecting" it, as not yet having incorporated it into their thinking, particularly regarding what an 11-yr-old might hear in church or the classroom.

"... back to earlier comments about Hitler being a Catholic; ..."

The earlier comments were not so much about Hitler "being a Catholic" so much as having received a Catholic upbringing, and what he might have been taught.

Anyway, can we concentrate on the central point. I am asserting that Hitler believed that man had been created by God in man's current form. And I've presented many quotes from Mein Kampf and other places to support that view. Would you agree that, as best we can tell, that was Hitler's opinion?

If you disagree, and want to argue that Hitler instead believed that man had evolved from earlier non-human life-forms then please present your evidence. So far none has been presented. And please note that creationists, who would be desperately keen for any such evidence and would quote it incessantly, have never produced any such evidence.

If you have no such evidence, can we then agree that Hitler believed that man had been created in man's current form? (And note that in asking that I'm avoiding questions of what labels could be used for that belief or whether or not it is or was compatible with Catholic teaching.)