Because it's unnecessary to invent words to describe what everyone already knows. Change happens.
-
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!
What do you call yourself?
- Thread starter Atruthseeker
- Start date
Gabethewiking
Active Member
Evolutionist...:cover:
Booya!
Also, "the Abrahamic God" should be changed to "people who accept a literal interpretation of the deity character portrayed in The Bible."
Creationists don't. People who accept the Genesis explanation as literally accurate do (d'uh).
I've personally had less of an issue with the term "evolutionist" since I re-read some of my Stephen Jay Gould books and noticed him using the term himself.
For me, it's not the word itself, it's the intent behind its use that can sometimes be the issue. If a person is using it to distinguish between, say, a Lamarkian and an evolutionist, then sure: the word can work. If it's being used to create a false equivocation between creationism and evolution, portraying them as both equally viable and equally supported, then that's where I have issues.
For me, it's not the word itself, it's the intent behind its use that can sometimes be the issue. If a person is using it to distinguish between, say, a Lamarkian and an evolutionist, then sure: the word can work. If it's being used to create a false equivocation between creationism and evolution, portraying them as both equally viable and equally supported, then that's where I have issues.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Many people who believe in evolution do not like being called evolutionists, saying it's wrong or lazy. (And even have a problem with that sentence...) Anyway, you all know what I mean, so in order for me to address you correctly, what do you call yourselves? ( I don't want to hurt your fragile egos!) Is it Evolutionists, Darwinists, Nnon-creationists/Materialists etc?
Ie, we may call ourselves 'creationists' and people know what we mean.
A devotee of the 1st Church of the Primordial soup. Please pass the crackers.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Many people who believe in evolution do not like being called evolutionists, saying it's wrong or lazy. (And even have a problem with that sentence...) Anyway, you all know what I mean, so in order for me to address you correctly, what do you call yourselves? ( I don't want to hurt your fragile egos!
Ie, we may call ourselves 'creationists' and people know what we mean.
Scientifically literate.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
But what about creationists from other religions?
More generally, ideologists from other topics.
Gabethewiking
Active Member
You took the words out of my mouth. Exactly.
Atruthseeker, you do not call people who accept Gravity or a Spherical Earth anything particular, do you?
I have no problem with that; I think it is a good idea. As far as I am concerned you got a deal.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
So does Jerry Coyne, and I don't see a problem in using at as an abbreviation for 'evolutionary biologist' - i.e. a professional working in that field. What is fatuous is using it as a label for anyone and everyone who happens to include this particular theory among dozens they accept as true.
As an afterthought, and an argument against myself: have those of us who choose to come here and argue with creationists - thereby singling ourselves out as identifying with the opposing view - labeled ourselves 'evolutionists'?
And does a label matter? Should we not be concentrating on the substance?
Atruthseeker
Active Member
I'd say so.:yes:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I call myself a Biologist.
wa:do
wa:do
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
And i'll settle for just "homo".
...erm...wait...
...erm...wait...
lupus
Member
Many people who believe in evolution do not like being called evolutionists, saying it's wrong or lazy. (And even have a problem with that sentence...) Anyway, you all know what I mean, so in order for me to address you correctly, what do you call yourselves? ( I don't want to hurt your fragile egos!
Ie, we may call ourselves 'creationists' and people know what we mean.
I'd vote for REALIST....this definition sums it up quite well......
re⋅al⋅ist
noun 1. a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are. 2. an artist or a writer whose work is characterized by realism. 3. Philosophy. an adherent of realism.
adjective 4. of or pertaining to realism or to a person who embodies its principles or practices: the realist approach to social ills; realist paintings.
Alternatively I'll just accept Jacqui!