No such thing as "evolutionists"

[Magic Man]

I give up.

Look, the point is "evolutionist" is just a way of saying "someone who believes in evolution". Since you don't actually believe in evolution, you accept or reject it, the term is misleading. Someone who accepts evolution is being rational about it, someone who doesn't is being irrational. If you'd rather, we could replace "evolutionist" with "someone who is being rational about evolution".

I'm sure you can still debate some people about a lot of stupid stuff. That doesn't mean we need terms to distinguish the two sides.

 

[Man of Faith]

Look, the point is "evolutionist" is just a way of saying "someone who believes in evolution". Since you don't actually believe in evolution, you accept or reject it, the term is misleading. Someone who accepts evolution is being rational about it, someone who doesn't is being irrational. If you'd rather, we could replace "evolutionist" with "someone who is being rational about evolution".

I'm sure you can still debate some people about a lot of stupid stuff. That doesn't mean we need terms to distinguish the two sides.

I disagree that evolutionist means "believe in evolution", and Webster agrees with me. It could mean someone that "accepts the ToE." And of course it is debatable whether accepting the ToE is rational.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist
Pronunciation: \-sh(ə-)nəst\
Function: noun
: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree that evolutionist means "believe in evolution", and Webster agrees with me. It could mean someone that "accepts the ToE."

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist
Pronunciation: \-sh(ə-)nəst\
Function: noun
: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution

That's great, but it's used as "someone who believes in evolution". People who understand that you either accept or reject the theory don't use the term "evolutionist".

 

[Falvlun]

Look, the point is "evolutionist" is just a way of saying "someone who believes in evolution". Since you don't actually believe in evolution, you accept or reject it, the term is misleading. Someone who accepts evolution is being rational about it, someone who doesn't is being irrational. If you'd rather, we could replace "evolutionist" with "someone who is being rational about evolution".

I never once said we should use "evolutionist". I simply was stating that "rational" is not a good substitute. In my recent posts, I consistently use "someone who accepts evolution". I think that's the best option.

I'm sure you can still debate some people about a lot of stupid stuff. That doesn't mean we need terms to distinguish the two sides.

In a debate that comes up as often as this one, in both RL and RF, I think it is helpful to have easy-to-use terms to identify both sides.

 

[Man of Faith]

I think people are being too picky on the subject. This forum is evolution vs creation, not reason vs creation.

 

[Yerda]

I never once said we should use "evolutionist".

Why not?

 

[Tristesse]

I think people are being too picky on the subject. This forum is evolution vs creation, not reason vs creation.

I actually somewhat agree with you. I don't find the term evolutionist insulting at all. Although, it is kind of about reason vs. creation. You can call me a gravitationist too if you like. And a sphere earthist. But I think these terms clutter up the issue.

 

[Falvlun]

Why not?

Because some people find it legitimizes the idea that acceptance of evolution is about belief, rather than acceptance of a scientific fact.

 

[Yerda]

Because some people find it legitimizes the idea that accepting evolution as true is about belief, rather than acceptance of a scientific fact.

Is accepting a statement different from believing it?

 

[Man of Faith]

I actually somewhat agree with you. I don't find the term evolutionist insulting at all. Although, it is kind of about reason vs. creation. You can call me a gravitationist too if you like. And a sphere earthist. But I think these terms clutter up the issue.

If there were competing ideas concerning gravity and a circular earth, and there were forums dedicated to that, I'm sure words would be made to describe both sides.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree that evolutionist means "believe in evolution", and Webster agrees with me.

In one sense, I think the definition works. "Evolutionist" can be taken to simply mean "person who accepts the theory of evolution" in the same way that "heliocentrist" can be taken to simply mean "person who accepts that the Sun, as opposed to the Earth, is the centre of the solar system."

However, it's become increasingly rare for me to see the term "evolutionist" used this way. More often than not, it's used as a response to the term "creationist" as part of an attempt to give the two positions equal status, which is, IMO, a misleading tactic that's at best uninformed and at worst dishonest.

It could mean someone that "accepts the ToE."

In the right circumstance, it could. However, the term has taken on extra baggage, thanks to the creationist tactics I mentioned. That baggage can be used for emotional and rhetorical "points" in a debate, regardless of whether the creationist debator feigns ignorance of that baggage.

And of course it is debatable whether accepting the ToE is rational.

Sure... you can debate anything. But that doesn't mean that your arguments in such a debate would be well-founded.

 

[Falvlun]

Is accepting a statement different from believing it?

Belief has connotations of faith. We are not taking the theory of evolution on faith, but on the vast weight of scientific evidence. I think that is the difference that is trying to be stressed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is accepting a statement different from believing it?

It can be. But the bigger issue is with the idea that evolution doesn't have any more support than creationism does.

It's usually used as a sort of "tit-for-tat" tactic: "you say that creationists believe in unfounded things that they just got out of the Bible? Well, you just got your ideas out of On the Origin of Species, so you're no better than us!"

More seriously, this idea that creationism and "evolutionism" are beliefs with equal merit that are adopted in similar ways has led to some major issues, especially for education:

- the idea that creationism has just as much going for it as evolution, so it should be taught in science classes too.

- (the flipside of the above) the idea that "evolutionism" is a religion, and therefore public schools shouldn't teach it.

- more recently, the idea that a spectrum of views on evolution (e.g. "intelligent design") are just as valid as the accepted theory, in the same way that a spectrum of views on religion are all equally valid.

 

[Yerda]

Belief has connotations of faith. We are not taking the theory of evolution on faith, but on the vast weight of scientific evidence. I think that is the difference that is trying to be stressed.

You don't have to stress that to me. I don't find the term insulting or a threat to the superiority in which we currently hold rational ideas.

 

[Tristesse]

If there were competing ideas concerning gravity and a circular earth, and there were forums dedicated to that, I'm sure words would be made to describe both sides.

Well, there aren't competing ideas about evolution, so, I'm not sure what you are implying. Evolution is a fact. Just like gravity is a fact or a sphere(not round) earth is a fact. Creationists like to say, well, micro-evolution is a fact, only because it's observable and to not realize it as a fact would make them appear more ignorant than they are. But what they don't realize is micro-evolution is macro-evolution but on a vast time scale.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

It can be. But the bigger issue is with the idea that evolution doesn't have any more support than creationism does.

It's usually used as a sort of "tit-for-tat" tactic: "you say that creationists believe in unfounded things that they just got out of the Bible? Well, you just got your ideas out of On the Origin of Species, so you're no better than us!"

More seriously, this idea that creationism and "evolutionism" are beliefs with equal merit that are adopted in similar ways has led to some major issues, especially for education:

- the idea that creationism has just as much going for it as evolution, so it should be taught in science classes too.

- (the flipside of the above) the idea that "evolutionism" is a religion, and therefore public schools shouldn't teach it.

- more recently, the idea that a spectrum of views on evolution (e.g. "intelligent design") are just as valid as the accepted theory, in the same way that a spectrum of views on religion are all equally valid.

I simply must disagree that it is the term 'evolutionism' that has the power to do all that, rather it is the relentless lobbying of those in favour of creationism.

 

[Falvlun]

I simply must disagree that it is the term 'evolutionism' that has the power to do all that, rather it is the relentless lobbying of those in favour of creationism.

It's not that it causes the problem. It is indicative of it, and helps perpetuate it.

 

[Tristesse]

I simply must disagree that it is the term 'evolutionism' that has the power to do all that, rather it is the relentless lobbying of those in favour of creationism.

I agree here. It's creationism that has the money for lobbying, to make this seem like an actual issue that scientists are struggling with, when in fact it's so far not an issue, that most scientists are reluctant to even debate it, because thats just giving them credence.

 

[Magic Man]

If there were competing ideas concerning gravity and a circular earth, and there were forums dedicated to that, I'm sure words would be made to describe both sides.

There are probably people who do hold competing arguments in those cases. The point is there shouldn't be any competing sides on these issues.

 

[Magic Man]

The point that seems to be getting lost here is that "evolutionist" is not a useful term. It's only used to insinuate that the "evolutionist" is just the same as a creationist. It's used because the view of the issue by the people using it is that evolution is just a different belief than creationism.

All the term does is help confuse the issue even more. It doesn't help anything. No one is insulted by it, but sometimes it's used to try to insult.