• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No such thing as "evolutionists"

Draka

Wonder Woman
Quite simply, "evolutionist", as it is used on this forum by so many, is a nonsensical word and there are no such people. There are reasonable, logical, scientifically informed people, and then there are creationists. The only possible use of "evolutionist" there can logically be is in the same vein as the word "physicist", in that it denotes a scientist who specifically studies evolution. However, that term would encompass many fields including archeology, biology, and so on. While we do have some members here who are in those roles, a person who simply accepts evolution for the fact that it is is not an "evolutionist", they are sane.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
The irony is that words like "evolutionist" are made up in an attempt to disparage the theory of evolution by labelling it a belief system. It's essentially a recognition that putting evolution and creationism on equal footing requires one to degrade evolution.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
While we do have some members here who are in those roles, a person who simply accepts evolution for the fact that it is is not an "evolutionist", they are sane.
Thank you for this, Lady Draka. I admit that this euphemism has passed my detectors and I think it is important to clarify the matter. I have also noticed a similar tendency with other words, that almost always are used with negative connotations.

Good thread. It might be interesting to check the etymology of the word itself.
 

imaginaryme

Active Member
A shortening of evolutionary biologist, and, as mentioned elsewhere on this forum, in the dictionary. I'm about ready to become a creationist. I sure didn't evolve from a monkey-like bang.:p
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
I believe in evolution and don't see anything wrong with the term evolutionist. :shrug:

Edit: Additionally (just in case someone doesn't like my post :D) my uni course: teaching English as a foreign language, and linguistics. ;)

This whole thing boils down to merely semantics.
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Thing is, this is how words enter our language. Someone coins them, and they catch on until eventually they are ingrained.
 

CarlinKnew

Well-Known Member
"I believe in evolution."
"I am an evolutionist."

These are phrases that creationists want you to use, simply because they add to the appearance that creationism and evolution are equally valid scientific positions. They aren't. Creationism has an extraordinarily successful marketing campaign. People actually believe that there's a scientific debate! There isn't!

So please stop using those phrases, and please delete this EvC subforum (yeah right :)), because it only assists the creationist marketing campaign by promoting confusion and ignorance.
 

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
What this post assumes is all scientists believe in and promote evolution. All scientists haven't proven evolution to themselves, they believe it based on others experiements. Meaning they have faith in the enterpretation of the data by other scientists. There is no scientific experiment that proves common descent of all animals. Evoluiton is extrapolated by looking at the data. And since nobody was there at the beginning of the world, then it is by faith that people believe what they have extrapolated to be true.

Before someone believes in evolution they must first believe it without evidence. They say that the evidence points to evolution but that is not true. The evidence that people tout as evolution is really just data that has to be interpreted one way or another.
 

ragordon168

Active Member
What do we call someone that is not a scientist and believes in and promotes evolution?

someone who listens to reason and evidence.


What this post assumes is all scientists believe in and promote evolution. All scientists haven't proven evolution to themselves, they believe it based on others experiements. Meaning they have faith in the enterpretation of the data by other scientists. There is no scientific experiment that proves common descent of all animals. Evoluiton is extrapolated by looking at the data. And since nobody was there at the beginning of the world, then it is by faith that people believe what they have extrapolated to be true.

Before someone believes in evolution they must first believe it without evidence. They say that the evidence points to evolution but that is not true. The evidence that people tout as evolution is really just data that has to be interpreted one way or another.

no they go on the evidence. sure they have faith that the science behind it is correct but if they ever question it they can look up the data, do their own expiriments/observations and see that the conclusions of ToE are correct.

religion on the other hand, if you question religion and look for proof all you'll find are books with no evidence and hear-say evidence (miracles and jesus toast)
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I believe in evolution and don't see anything wrong with the term evolutionist. :shrug:

It's the same with "believing in evolution". That also doesn't make sense. You either accept evolution or you don't. It's like 2+2 equalling 4.

With that said the problem with the word "evolutionist" is that it's only used by creationists to denote anyone who accepts evolution. It's meant as a degrading term, and it's used in phrases like "Evolutionists believe this". Evolutionists don't believe that. Normal people believe that. The point is that you could just as easily label the group of people that accepts evolution as rational, normal people, as opposed to creationists. The term "evolutionist" is also a dead giveaway that you're dealing with a creationist, since they're the only ones who feel the need to use it.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
What do we call someone that is not a scientist and believes in and promotes evolution?

You mean someone who accepts evolution? A normal, rational person who likes to base their ideas on facts.

Man of Faith said:
What this post assumes is all scientists believe in and promote evolution. All scientists haven't proven evolution to themselves, they believe it based on others experiements. Meaning they have faith in the enterpretation of the data by other scientists. There is no scientific experiment that proves common descent of all animals. Evoluiton is extrapolated by looking at the data. And since nobody was there at the beginning of the world, then it is by faith that people believe what they have extrapolated to be true.

No, unfortunately I'm sure there are some scientists who don't accept evolution. They're not biologists or doctors or anything related to biology, though, that's for sure.

Yes, the theory of evolution uses facts that we know and can show to explain something that happened long ago when humans weren't around. The same way science uses facts to explain other things so that we can have running water, and sturdy houses and computers and cars and airplanes and modern medicine. Why is it that you trust science for everything else except evolution? The same process is used to get the theory of evolution as is used to get computers. So, either you should accept evolution or you should stop using your computer.

Before someone believes in evolution they must first believe it without evidence.

No, see, that's the difference between evolution and creationism. All you have to do is look at the evidence for evolution, and you can see it's true. There's no belief involved.

They say that the evidence points to evolution but that is not true. The evidence that people tout as evolution is really just data that has to be interpreted one way or another.

Yes, again, much like all of the other data that science interprets with which you have no problem. You have no problem with science when it gives you cool, modern amenities like a refrigerator, but when it seems to contradict your precious belief about god (it doesn't even technically do that, you just see it that way), all of a sudden the problem is with science. Why don't you just go all the way? Just don't use anything that science has produced? Go live in the woods with no running water or preservatives for food, or pain-killers or antibiotics. And you definitely can't have a computer or car or house or even clothes from any store. Good luck with that.
 

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
A rationalist. Someone who understands the value of evidence and reason. And also someone who is familiar with reality.

We need to pull all the creationists off the streets because if they can't think rationally, they are a danger to the commnity. Not to mention though that they built this country into the greatest in the world.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
"A term used by Evangelical Christians to refer to over 99% of earth and biological scientists who use and support the theory of evolution in their professional work. The term is not used by scientists themselves."

Glossary of religious terms (Starting with "E")
That blanket statement isn't completely accurate. I know Stephen Jay Gould used the term "evolutionist" quite a bit (or at least in the books of his that I've read). Personally, I dislike the term.
 
Top