No such thing as "evolutionists"

[Metalic Wings]

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.

Or in the field of cultural ascent, the "evolutionists" believe that every group of people in the world start down at a "primative" level and work their way up to Culture, the high point of society. It is a linear path and every group strives for the same ideal.

(I don't agree, I might add, but there's another definition for the term.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 didn't say that the term has the power to do all that; my point was that the term is now used in that context to such an extent that using the term evokes that context.

Or in the field of cultural ascent, the "evolutionists" believe that every group of people in the world start down at a "primative" level and work their way up to Culture, the high point of society. It is a linear path and every group strives for the same ideal.

(I don't agree, I might add, but there's another definition for the term.)

A bad definition, IMO. Anyone who believes in an upward march of progress of species or cultures doesn't understand evolution.

Evolution isn't a ladder, it's a bush.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I would have to vote against this one. It seems to suggest someone who is actively working on or with the theory. I think it might apply to someone who is actually working in the field of biology, working on the details and variations of evolutionary theory. But I don’t think it suites the average person who simply has a basic understanding of scientific concepts.

No problem here. I was just throwing some out there. I don't think those who accept the theory of evolution need to be classified.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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'm fine with the word but wish, for lack of a better word, that the definition associated with the word Evolutionist meant (One who accepts the theory of Evolution). More could be added to the definition but it could work.

But looking at it the definition and the word really seems to work for creationist who are dealing with, talking about or debating atheist. I'm mean...a theist then could be classified as a Evolutionist as well....

 

[Man of Faith]

d 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.

We realize that is what is accepted and the 19th century science of those days is used to describe it. But we can't find a mechanism that can do it in the 21st century.

 

[tumbleweed41]

We realize that is what is accepted and the 19th century science of those days is used to describe it. But we can't find a mechanism that can do it in the 21st century.

Actually, in the 21st Century, we understand more about the biological processes of macroevolution and microevolution than they ever did in the 19th.
As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists.
And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution.
Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism.
It is Creationists who are stuck in the 19th Century definitions of biology.
Source

 

[ragordon168]

Or in the field of cultural ascent, the "evolutionists" believe that every group of people in the world start down at a "primative" level and work their way up to Culture, the high point of society. It is a linear path and every group strives for the same ideal.

A bad definition, IMO. Anyone who believes in an upward march of progress of species or cultures doesn't understand evolution.

Evolution isn't a ladder, it's a bush.[/quote]

correct me if im wrong MW but i think she meant cultural evolution not biological. cultures evolve the same way organisms do.

but i do agree with the bush analogy instead of a straight ladder.

 

[Tristesse]

We realize that is what is accepted and the 19th century science of those days is used to describe it. But we can't find a mechanism that can do it in the 21st century.

What do you mean by mechanism? In the 21st century we know more about evolution than ever before.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We realize that is what is accepted and the 19th century science of those days is used to describe it. But we can't find a mechanism that can do it in the 21st century.

Umm... that "mechanism" was described in detail by Watson and Crick in the 1950s:

DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[fantome profane]

Why don’t we simply call people who accept evolution “people who accept evolution”? I realize it requires a little extra typing, but considering all the stress and fuss that has been made (this is an 11 page thread and I sense it is not done yet) perhaps it is worth it.

Does anyone have a reason we couldn’t just use the phrase “people who accept evolution”?

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

Man of Faith actually makes a good point here. People seem to object to the term evolution on the grounds that it makes evolution and creationism seem equal. But doesn’t the very title of this sub-forum do that? Perhaps we should change the title of this forum to “reason vs. creation”, or perhaps “evolution vs. pseudo-science”. Or Might I suggest, “debunking creationism”.

 

[ragordon168]

Why don’t we simply call people who accept evolution “people who accept evolution”? I realize it requires a little extra typing, but considering all the stress and fuss that has been made (this is an 11 page thread and I sense it is not done yet) perhaps it is worth it.

Does anyone have a reason we couldn’t just use the phrase “people who accept evolution”?


Man of Faith actually makes a good point here. People seem to object to the term evolution on the grounds that it makes evolution and creationism seem equal. But doesn’t the very title of this sub-forum do that? Perhaps we should change the title of this forum to “reason vs. creation”, or perhaps “evolution vs. pseudo-science”. Or Might I suggest, “debunking creationism”.

PAE? or PWAE?

 

[Falvlun]

Why don’t we simply call people who accept evolution “people who accept evolution”? I realize it requires a little extra typing, but considering all the stress and fuss that has been made (this is an 11 page thread and I sense it is not done yet) perhaps it is worth it.

Does anyone have a reason we couldn’t just use the phrase “people who accept evolution”?

That's what my vote goes towards.

 

[Metalic Wings]

correct me if im wrong MW but i think she meant cultural evolution not biological. cultures evolve the same way organisms do.

but i do agree with the bush analogy instead of a straight ladder.

Yes, forgive me for not clarifying. Cultural Evolutionists believe in a Cultural Ladder.

I would rather side with Franz Boas, who says that their are many many cultures, each which influences others through contact and proximity.

I was bringing this up merely to point out another definition of the word "evolutionist""

 

[Draka]

Man of Faith actually makes a good point here. People seem to object to the term evolution on the grounds that it makes evolution and creationism seem equal. But doesn’t the very title of this sub-forum do that? Perhaps we should change the title of this forum to “reason vs. creation”, or perhaps “evolution vs. pseudo-science”. Or Might I suggest, “debunking creationism”.

How about, as it is overwhelmingly apparent that creationists have no clue what evolution really is and what it entails, and they are all debating the wrong dang thing, "Abiogenesis vs. Creation". They are always talking about creation being how life got here and all that yet seem to want to take on evolution, a subject they seem to want to know absolutely nothing about and refuse to see that evolution has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of life and the "how" life came about.

Why not take on the theories and hypotheses concerning abiogenesis and leave evolution alone? There is not, and has never been, a claim within the Theory of Evolution about the start of life, just the progression of life. When creationists can pull their heads out of their rears long enough to realize that fact then perhaps they can take on abiogenesis. Yet another reason to consider creationists irrational. They don't even know what they are arguing against.

 

[Magic Man]

Does anyone have a reason we couldn’t just use the phrase “people who accept evolution”?

I don't think it works for the people who actually use "evolutionists", since it doesn't have the connotation they want.

Man of Faith actually makes a good point here. People seem to object to the term evolution on the grounds that it makes evolution and creationism seem equal. But doesn’t the very title of this sub-forum do that? Perhaps we should change the title of this forum to “reason vs. creation”, or perhaps “evolution vs. pseudo-science”. Or Might I suggest, “debunking creationism”.

I don't think it puts them on equal footing, although I wouldn't oppose any of those other suggestions.

 

[ragordon168]

How about, as it is overwhelmingly apparent that creationists have no clue what evolution really is and what it entails, and they are all debating the wrong dang thing, "Abiogenesis vs. Creation". They are always talking about creation being how life got here and all that yet seem to want to take on evolution, a subject they seem to want to know absolutely nothing about and refuse to see that evolution has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of life and the "how" life came about.

Why not take on the theories and hypotheses concerning abiogenesis and leave evolution alone? There is not, and has never been, a claim within the Theory of Evolution about the start of life, just the progression of life. When creationists can pull their heads out of their rears long enough to realize that fact then perhaps they can take on abiogenesis. Yet another reason to consider creationists irrational. They don't even know what they are arguing against.

good point.

any creationist want to tell us where tis diagram of evolution gives the reason for origin of life?

 

[imaginaryme]

From the literature I have read, the term is "evolutionary biologist" or just "biologist."

There's actually too much wasted effort involving emotional appeal in this arena of debate. Why do people insist upon attaching unnecessary baggage to a meaningless concept? I don't care what the dictionary says, it's fricking witchcraft; and a man of faith should know better than to play with such forces. If I cannot find an evolutionary biologist who uses such a term to label his or her own actual field of study; nor said classification of scientist who even uses the term beyond the loosest of connotations - then the opposing argument seems valid. That it was created as an insult, (witchcraft) or; at the very least, it is used solely by creationists to provoke. (witchcraft) So, what's it to be, the stake; or the water test?

 

[sonofskeptish]

The term evolutionist is like the term athiest... it's a label used by the religious to draw the line between friends and foes. We are ALL athiests when it comes to the religion of others, it's just that some of us don't have a religion of our own. Why should we have to label ourselves evolutionists, athiests or starbuckdrinkerists?

 

[Vile Atheist]

The term evolutionist is like the term athiest... it's a label used by the religious to draw the line between friends and foes. We are ALL athiests when it comes to the religion of others, it's just that some of us don't have a religion of our own. Why should we have to label ourselves evolutionists, athiests or starbuckdrinkerists?

I am gladly an astarbuckdrinkerist!

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry, I try to retain an astarbuckian stance as much as is possible.