Outright creationists are actually a relatively small proportion of even the American population; they're about [20%](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-many-creationists-are-there-in-america/). Even then, mostly these days they seem to be trying to dress themselves as scientists, as you note--"intelligent design" being their current go-to fig leaf. Maybe my own view is wrongly skewed, but it seems that the number of creationists who wholeheartedly reject science itself is relatively low.

They are believing outright falsehoods, ignoring truths, or cherry-picking facts because it is ideologically convenient to them. Which is, indeed, denying truths that science has revealed to us. It is not, however, necessarily denying science as a philosophy. I'm sure all of *us* do what I've just described at various points, though I do think we do so less frequently and less blatantly (though I *would*, wouldn't I?). We're all biased. But that doesn't mean we "deny science." What matters in terms of "science as a philosophy" is whether we believe that the scientific method is an appropriate way for investigating empirical questions, whether we believe methodological naturalism is a useful tool, that there is an objective reality we all share, et cetera. If you asked global warming deniers, antivaxxers, et cetera, "Does the scientific method provide accurate information about the world?," "Should naturalism be the working philosophy when investigating empirical questions?," or "Is there an objective reality shared by all observers?," I think the vast majority would say *yes*. Then they'll argue that, akshully, science says that global warming isn't real (engineers are particularly bad about this, it seems), or they found this study that says deworming pills work, or that vaccines cause autism, or whatever the bullshit of the day is. This is unlike the behavior displayed by pretty much anyone else who rejects a philosophy. Kantians don't argue that you get more utility by never lying. Utilitarians don't argue that the categorical imperative commands you to pull a trolley lever. Atheists will argue about Bible verses, but only to try to underline Christian hypocrisy; we don't actually give a shit about what the Bible says and we'll openly admit it. Proponents of science-based medicine do not argue that using vaccines will align your chakras. I think it's more useful to relegate the term "science denier" to people who think that the philosophical assumptions of science are inherently unsound, rather than people who deny particular scientific facts, no matter how blindingly obvious those facts should be. So the claim is: 1. The difference between these "science deniers" and the rest of us is largely in degree, not in kind. Virtually everyone denies things that are scientifically true for non-scientific reasons; the "science deniers" just do so in a more blatant, frequent manner on hot topic issues. 2. Most of the "science deniers" accept the scientific consensus on most other matters, and agree with the philosophical foundations of science (as they are usually defined; I'm aware that there isn't a really good definition of what science actually *is*). 3. Given that, the term "science denier" should be reserved for someone who rejects science in its entirety as a valid method and philosophical system. Few such people exist, but there are some. It should not be used for global warming denialists, a substantial number of whom are avowed empiricists and atheists. At the *very* least, the fact that "science deniers" position themselves as being the legitimate advocates of science, and often genuinely believe themselves to be so, is a nuance that needs to be pointed out.