The YEC creation of "Darwinist"

[Deamiter]

I've always been bothered when people attempt to call me "Darwinist." First of all, what does it actually mean? If (as the name implies) it means I follow Darwin's initial hypotheses rather than the highly modified modern understanding of evolution I doubt if ANYBODY is a Darwinist. If it is simply synonomous with evolutionist, then why the obfuscation?

My best guess is that it's an attempt to classify evolution as a belief or even a belief system. If so, does anybody actually claim to be a Darwinist? If so do they agree with this definition of belief in an unsupported idea?

As the Bible says, we are Christians, not Paulians or John the Baptists. Labels like Lutheran or Baptist are useful for understanding one's personal Biblical views but ONLY if everybody agrees on the terms!

Mentally defining "Darwinism" and then calling me a "Darwinist" without defining the term is meaningless -- simply an ad hominim -- much like if I were to define "Bibolater" as "somebody who tries to take as much of the Bible as possible literally" and then threw it out at every YEC... It would hardly help discussion even though by MY definition it's probably correct.

However, people who use the term "Darwinist" don't even do this -- I think they define the term as something like "materialist humanist" and then throw it at anybody who accepts the conclusions of evolution. In doing so, they are using the term not only to insult, but to directly contradict the stated beliefs of somebody. The use of Darwinist is more like if I defined the term "Bibolater" as "somebody who worships the Bible, not God" and then started calling every YEC a Bibolater!

I am not even a Theistic Evolutionist though I tolerate the label. I am a Christian, and in terms of theology I'm a bit scattered, but I'm currently a member of a covenant church and would be happy to be identified with them. I am NOT however, a Darwinist by any definition I've ever seen (besides the one conflating "Darwinist" and "evolutionist" thus making the term worthless). I don't believe in evolution, I just accept the scientific community's conclusion that it's the most likely explanation for all the evidence collected to date. Similarly I am not a Newtonian or a Einstienian, nor am I a gravitationalist or a germist. I accept the work of these scientists and I accept the conclusions of these theories, but why would I ever identify myself by such a silly title?

Anyway, I'd like to hear what other people think the term "Darwinist" is and if anybody knows of a scientist or theologian who identifies themselves as a Darwinist. I'm also interested in any defence of the use of the term -- is there any reason why throwing labels like Darwinist at somebody who doesn't agree that they fit the label is productive in an online debate?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is a curious term. For the label ought to be "neo-darwinian modern synthesis" not Darwinianist or Darwinist. I think that in most communities where the TofE is discredited and unbelieved that they are tapping into a vein of an emotional matrix that thinks all evil in the world is at Darwin's feet.

But really what the term signifies is as you point out:
My best guess is that it's an attempt to classify evolution as a belief or even a belief system.

this is not a wrong idea, but how they do it loses the levels in the discussion. Science is one lower level, then there is a metaphysics that is drawn out of the science. I don't have any problem calling it evolutionism, like i use the terms naturalism or materialism to refer to a metaphysical, philosophic position.

but as you say, it is being used as an ad hominem in other to gain the respectibility and assent of those who think that the science of the TofE is the same thing as social darwinism or Dawkin's evolutionism.

is there any reason why throwing labels like Darwinist at somebody who doesn't agree that they fit the label is productive in an online debate?

there is no indication that those using such emotionally laden terms are actually interested in a productive debate, they appear more eager to "bear their testimony to the truth" or convince YECist lurkers that there really is a valid and scientifically sound position for them on these discussed issues. Like name calling it is often a last resort for those who know they can not debate the issue on it's merits but must rely on gaining converts to their cause by tying strong emotions from one issue to another.

 

[Brennan]

It's trying to perpetuate the myth of science as some kind of almost idolatrous hero-worship. 'Wow see him he's a Darwinist' suggests the same level of blind belief, worship even, as 'wow he's a Satanist': Not only that, it suggests idolatrous violation of 'thou shalt have no other god before me'.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I use the term Darwinist, though like rmwilliamsll said, it should probably be something like neo-Darwinist.

There's nothing wrong with using terms to define someone's view on a particular thing. Eg, calling someone a Christian is a label too. Is there anything wrong with that?

Now the label itself may come to have negative connotations - deservedly or undeservedly. Eg, YEC's may try to make the term Darwinist synonymous with atheist. Darwinists may try to make the label Creationist synonymous with unlearned fool, ignorant layman, etc. Those are, perhaps, ad-hominem attacks. But there's nothing innately wrong with accurate labels.

I find a term like Darwinist extremely helpful. I believe in evolution because there's undeniable evidence for it. I don't believe, however, that there is good enough reason to believe that all living things on earth share a common ancestor. How then can you distinguish your beliefs from mine? With the term "Darwinist" it makes it quite simple to show where you stand.

I don't use the term Darwinist in a derogatory sense, but others might. That's all part of the rhetoric of this debate.

 

[philadiddle]

nice rant Deamiter, nothing good on TV?

 

[shernren]

I've seen some people get worked up about this, but I don't really understand it. As far as I've seen, many people who call us "evolutionists" don't mentally and deliberately go "Ok, I want to make evolution sound like a religion, and all the big religions have -ists on them, so if I call them 'evolutionists', I'll make them sound religious!" For many of them, they have borrowed the term from creationist sources with limited or no understanding of the attempt to load the term with the "religion" card.

My take on it is that being called an "evolutionist" is the least of my worries. It is quite silly, but the creationist camp does far sillier things than that, and proportionately speaking, their use of the label "evolutionist" doesn't take up much of my time or effort.

 

[Deamiter]

nice rant Deamiter, nothing good on TV?

Nope, and my World of Warcraft add-on won't arrive for a day or two...

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Evolution may not be a religion, but it is root in one: Atheism.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Evolution may not be a religion, but it is root in one: Atheism.

how specifically, is the scientific theory of evolution rooted in atheism?
what principles are you talking about?

 

[gluadys]

Evolution may not be a religion, but it is root in one: Atheism.

If that were true, it would not be a matter of controversy among Christians. Yet it is.

 

[vossler]

If that were true, it would not be a matter of controversy among Christians. Yet it is.

It is a matter of controversy because one of the basic tenets of atheism is evolution.

 

[Mallon]

It is a matter of controversy because one of the basic tenets of atheism is evolution.

One of the basic tenets of atheism is ontological naturalism, NOT evolution.
That's like saying one of the basic tenets of atheism is meteorology. It's silly when Dawkins says it and it's silly when you say it.

 

[gluadys]

It is a matter of controversy because one of the basic tenets of atheism is evolution.

Even if that were true, which it is not, that would not be a cause for evolution being a matter of controversy among Christians.

 

[random_guy]

It is a matter of controversy because one of the basic tenets of atheism is evolution.

Only in the same way that one of the tenets of atheism is gravity. Do you accept gravity? If so, why are you accepteding a false religion?

 

[philadiddle]

Evolution may not be a religion, but it is root in one: Atheism.

It is a matter of controversy because one of the basic tenets of atheism is evolution.

atheism existed before the theory of evolution

Only in the same way that one of the tenets of atheism is gravity. Do you accept gravity? If so, why are you accepteding a false religion?

i am a gravitationalist, does that mean i'm going to hell?

 

[vossler]

Even if that were true, which it is not, that would not be a cause for evolution being a matter of controversy among Christians.

It's only a matter of controversy among Christians because so many believe in evolution. I really don't understand why that's some sort of problem or hard to accept.

So you don't think evolution is a tenet of atheism? I can't recall ever meeting an atheist who didn't believe in evolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So you don't think evolution is a tenet of atheism? I can't recall ever meeting an atheist who didn't believe in evolution.

so? Abusus non tollit usum.

 

[shernren]

That's "wrong use does not preclude proper use", for all of us Latin-illiterati. Personally I've always found the "moral argument" against evolution ("evolution is the root of moral decay, hence it is wrong!") a little strange. It's somewhat like saying that because atomic theory leads to radiation and fallout and nuclear warfare and all, we should abandon Einstein and go back to a time when we didn't think matter could convert into energy.

 

[Assyrian]

There is a stronger connection between heliocentrism and the godlessness of the Enlightenment. You would be hard pressed to find an 18 century atheist who didn't accept Copernican Cosmology and see it as evidence against God and the bible.

 

[simplyg123]

I've seen some people get worked up about this, but I don't really understand it. As far as I've seen, many people who call us "evolutionists" don't mentally and deliberately go "Ok, I want to make evolution sound like a religion, and all the big religions have -ists on them, so if I call them 'evolutionists', I'll make them sound religious!" For many of them, they have borrowed the term from creationist sources with limited or no understanding of the attempt to load the term with the "religion" card.

My take on it is that being called an "evolutionist" is the least of my worries. It is quite silly, but the creationist camp does far sillier things than that, and proportionately speaking, their use of the label "evolutionist" doesn't take up much of my time or effort.

i believe evolution should be considered a religion, anywhere a creationist would say "God" did it, evolutionist woud say a "long period of time" did it.

therefore lies the "God" of the evolutionist : Time