Evolutionists are scientists.

[PeterMaclellan]

I dont know if this is a recent trend or has been going on for some time on this board but I notice rather then using the correct term "scientists" the anti-evolution crowd has been referring to their ideological opponents as simply "Evolutionists".

Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like a cheap attempt to frame those that believe in evolutionists as simply a faction of the scientific community rather then the scientific community itself. The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot call yourself a scientist without believing in evolution, to believe in creationism or to out of hand reject evolution as false is to completely abdicate the primary responsibility of any and all scientists and that is to draw conclusions based on evidence.

A scientist, among other things, will undoubtably believe in evolution in some form, be it theistic evolution or otherwise. Using the term "Evolutionist" is simply a backhanded trick to try and make it seem as though a Creationist can be a scientist as well, when the simple fact is that one cannot believe in this day and age that the evidence suggest a supernatural creator and still claim to be a scientist.

Honestly how would the creationist side feel if we were to make up words with double meaning in order to misrepresent the debate? Should we stop referring to Creationists as Creationists and rather as, say "Irrationalists" or "Illogicallists"? Certainly from a scientific standpoint these terms are apt, just as from a creationist standpoint the word evolutionist is technically apt, it doesn't change the fact that it would be an underhanded trick to try an tip the playing field in our favor from the get go via semantics rather then logical arguments.

Anyway, I was just musing on the subject and thought I'd share my thoughts.

 

[TheOutsider]

Sounds about right to me but i've seen it used in a broader sense than that. Here is the definition I gave a few weeks ago.

Evolutionist: anyone who agrees that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the diversity of life we see on earth evolved from a common ascentor through the actions of genetic mutation and natural selection.

Or as I like to call it REALITY!

I think that I like your "Irrationalists" idea.

 

[MoonLancer]

I think creationist is a very mean word already. irrationalist is unnecessary. I mean you have seen av claim he or she is not a creationist. hell you cant even go out in public in most places and claim your a creationist.

I am a EvoTruther, not a evolutionist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I use the term 'Evolutionist' to refer to anyone who believes Common Descent is true.
I don't agree with equating 'Evolutionist' with 'Scientist' because there are believers who are not scientists, and scientists who are not believers (though they are a great minority)

 

[Impaler]

It isn't right, but in comparison to creationists it's easier to just call us evolutionists.

Now when they call us Darwinists and evolution Darwinism, then it's wrong. It seems they're trying to make it seem that Darwin is like a messiah to us. We don't call heliocentricity Galileoism or gravity Newtonism.

 

[Molal]

People who study evolution are scientists, just as those who study molecular biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.

It is creating a distinction where one does not exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

People who study evolution are scientists, just as those who study molecular biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.

It is creating a distinction where one does not exist.

Like 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', or the border of Libya and Egypt. Purely arbitrary.

 

[shernren]

It isn't right, but in comparison to creationists it's easier to just call us evolutionists.

Now when they call us Darwinists and evolution Darwinism, then it's wrong. It seems they're trying to make it seem that Darwin is like a messiah to us. We don't call heliocentricity Galileoism or gravity Newtonism.

What? He is! You heretic.

Grrrrr.

 

[Phred]

Mostly, the people who use the term "evolutionist" are creationists. They do so to try and bring evolution down to their level and make it sound like a belief. Same with "Darwinism" which is a very specific term and not used as the broad-based insult most creationists mean it to be. However, in the last year or two evolutionist has become a more widely used term. It's a shame. It's really not appropriate.

 

[Logic_Fault]

I think it'd actually be better to be called an "Irrationalist" or "Illogicallist" rather than a "Creationist". At least being irrational or illogical is easily cured.

 

[plindboe]

I personally do not mind the term "evolutionist". I understand why people need a term for those on the other side of the debate. It's simply too long to say "people who accept the theory of evolution" every time.

Likewise when I discuss on paranormal boards I often have to use the term "believers" instead of having to say "people who believe that paranormal phenonema are real" every single time, even though I do accept that we all operate through beliefs, and are thus all believers concerning various concepts.

I have a problem with the term "darwinist" though, as it hints a kind of worship of the guy, and ignores the fact that the TOE has come a long way since it was first proposed.

Peter

 

[corvus_corax]

I dont know if this is a recent trend or has been going on for some time on this board but I notice rather then using the correct term "scientists" the anti-evolution crowd has been referring to their ideological opponents as simply "Evolutionists".

I am not a scientist in that I have no educational degrees. I accept that the theory of evolution is the single best model explaining the diversity of species on this planet.
What would you call me?

Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like a cheap attempt to frame those that believe in evolutionists as simply a faction of the scientific community rather then the scientific community itself.

Well, quite frankly, we have read about scientists who are creationists. Granted, the vast majority of them are not biologists (or involved in related fields such as paleontology, genetics, etc), but the fact remains that many scientists could give a fig regarding evolution/creation.

The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot call yourself a scientist without believing in evolution

Tell that to some chemists I know
Fact of the matter is, yes you can be a scientist (in your specific field) without accepting the ToE, simply because the ToE doesn't directly affect all scientific fields.

to believe in creationism or to out of hand reject evolution as false is to completely abdicate the primary responsibility of any and all scientists and that is to draw conclusions based on evidence.

Any and all scientists?
Methinks

A scientist, among other things, will undoubtably believe in evolution in some form, be it theistic evolution or otherwise.

That brush is getting wider and wider

Using the term "Evolutionist" is simply a backhanded trick to try and make it seem as though a Creationist can be a scientist as well, when the simple fact is that one cannot believe in this day and age that the evidence suggest a supernatural creator and still claim to be a scientist.

(emphasis mine)
~Ahem~
According to your statement, no "Theistic Evolutionist" is a scientist. We, after all, believe in a supernatural creator.
But wait, you said earlier in your post- "A scientist, among other things, will undoubtably believe in evolution in some form, be it theistic evolution or otherwise".
So is a scientist one who cannot believe in a supernatural creator?

Honestly how would the creationist side feel if we were to make up words with double meaning in order to misrepresent the debate? Should we stop referring to Creationists as Creationists and rather as, say "Irrationalists" or "Illogicallists"?

I prefer the term "Reality Deniers" and class them along with Holocaust Deniers, UFOlogist, Bigfoot fanatics and Nessie chasers.

Anyway, I was just musing on the subject and thought I'd share my thoughts.

Fair enough.
I'm a person (non-scientist) who accepts evolutionary theory based on the evidence I have read and examined. I accept it as the current best model explaining the diversity of species on this planet.

Now, how should people describe me in an online debate?

"Evolutionist" works for me, simply because I accept the evolution model. "Creationist" works for most of those who accept a literal account of Genesis as factual. In both cases, a one word summary (generally speaking) works fairly well.

I suppose I could start describing myself and my fellow "evolutionists" as "we who accept the Theory of Evolution as the single best current model explaining the diversity of species on this planet", but "Evolutionists" is far quicker when typing.


Well that, and most of us aren't actually scientists.

 

[shernren]

I personally do not mind the term "evolutionist". I understand why people need a term for those on the other side of the debate. It's simply too long to say "people who accept the theory of evolution" every time.

A Google search for "evolutionist" reveals that indeed, the term is much more commonly used by creationists.

It also reveals that the same term was used in various dictionaries online to describe, simply, people who accept the theory of evolution. It was also used at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/darwin/evolutionist/index.htm and http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.07/dawkins_pr.html - which were uses I doubt anybody would quarrel with.

I think when dealing with creationists, systematizing the terminology of practitioners is hardly a priority ... XD

 

[Merlin]

To disagree with a conclusion reached does not make one less a scientist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To disagree with a conclusion reached does not make one less a scientist.

It does if one's disagreement is based on personal bias. Show me an unbiased, valid, scientific criticism of evolutionary theory. Just one.