im an atheist because science has proven evolution fact. i dont understand why some people are offended by the word evolutionist though. ive heard it said evolutionist is an attempt to turn evolution into a religion. how exactly? does the word biologist turn biology into a religion. chemist/chemestry physicist/physics. no so why do some studiers of evolution get offended by the term evolutionist you can call me it all you like i suspect they dont understand language adding ist to the end of a worm is not an attempt to turn a science into a religion.
2007-01-11 09:14:57 · 34 answers · asked by hadit l 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The word is not offensive, only the idea.
By the way , what is a "wormist" ?
2007-01-12 10:25:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all stems from the Creationist/Evolutionist debate that kind of defines whether people believe that life was created by a higher being or just randomly occured due to environmental conditions.
Some argue that creationism is crazy for lots of reasons like "who made the creator then?" or "why did the creator make evil if he is so good?" etc etc.
Some argue that evolutionism is crazy because of its seeming unlikeliness or with things such as "If we evolved then why are we the only intelligent species that evolved".
Of course the are counter-arguments etc but what you have to appreciate is evolution only really explains the propagation of life not the actual initiation of life or the begining of the universe. This is far less evidential supported and much more theoretical. Therefore it could be argued that evolutionists inherently have faith in something that is not fully substantiated as the cause of all life.
People mistake science as a theological explanation this is not its purpose. Science is an intellectual tool used to observe and manipulte the physical world to enable us to do things that would at first seem impossible. Such as the theory of force and gravity leading to flight. Real scientists do not attempt to disprove the existence of God they leave that to the Philosophers and Theologists to waste time on.
2007-01-11 09:32:24 · answer #2 · answered by Bohdisatva 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They find the word offensive because, regardless of what you may believe, they know that evolution is only a belief and not a 'proven fact.' To claim that science has proven evolution is an insult to good, honest scientists who believe in the scientific method.
Evolution has become just like some religions, it now depends more on ideology and wishful thinking than on an objective search for truth. And those evolutionists who are honest know it.
In fact, scientifically, evolution falls at the very first hurdle, the origin of life and the origin of the information required for the first life. If you think this problem has been solved, or will ever be solved by a naturalistic solution then i'm afraid you are an idiot with little true respect for the scientific values you claim to follow.
Let us have some honesty and integrity in science for once, which I fear has become sadly lacking in the evolution field.
2007-01-11 09:51:38 · answer #3 · answered by A.M.D.G 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
just to answer those ignorant religious bigots that are saying that evolution is not proven, take a look:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2456974,00.html
and this is just one of millions of pieces of evidence.
It is funny to watch religious halfwits banging on about how evolution is still just a theory. That just shows how ignorant they really are. The earth going around the sun is still just a theory! These people really don't understand the term 'theory' in the scientific context. Now take 'intelligent design'. This isn't even a theory because it doesn't meet even the most basic scientific criteria, and is no more plausible than saying Donald Duck created everything!
Evolution is an extremely strong theory because it has a vast amount of evidence supporting it. There is no scientific evidence contradicting it, only the bullshxt propaganda peddled by religious zealots. Additionally there is not a single alternate scientific theory to evolution in the same way that there isn't for the laws of thermodynamics.
Needless to say religious zealots will continue to spread their anti evolution propaganda to ignorant sheep like the ones answering your question. And these sheep will suck it up, because they want to believe. They need to grow up and leave their infantile myths in history where they belong. I guess finding out about Santa must have burnt them too much, they're not going to let this one go!
I keep seeing creationists asking questions that they don't think can be explained by evolution. The simple fact is that they simply don't understand evolution. If they did, they would be asking such stupid questions. But they won't. They like their ignorance. They feel comfortable with it. What a sad sad existence.
2007-01-11 09:40:52 · answer #4 · answered by gbiaki 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, science has NOT proven evolution to be a fact. It is a religion because it takes a great amount of faith to believe that a dog and a cat had a common ancestor, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support it. It takes a great deal of faith to believe that the world is millions of years old, when the humans claiming this idea were never there to prove it. There are alternative explanations as to why the rocks of the Earth are layered that make a lot more sense than uniformitarianism.
If you want an excellent read, I would recommend "The Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell. It contains a wealth of scientific facts that you will never learn in a liberal college.
Biology, Chemistry and Physics are REAL sciences that are demonstrable in the lab. Evolution is not. In fact, the founders of these sciences were all young-Earth Creationists! They were searching for evidence of design and order in nature - and they found it.
All Darwin proved was that pigeons produce pigeons and finches produce finches. So he was basically proving Biblical Creation, which says that animals only bring forth after their kind. He did NOT prove evolution at all.
2007-01-11 09:32:23 · answer #5 · answered by FUNdie 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It is clear from context that it is frequently used as an epithet. I am a biologist, not an "evolutionist". My field of study is life sciences, not evolution (I occasionally deal with issues revolving around evolution). Geologists and astrophysicists get lump in with biologists for supporting an old Earth / old universe view. The word evolutionist is purely a rhetorical device to create linguistic partity between scientists in a variety of fields and the "Scientific" Creationists who are espousing political (not religious) doctrine, not science.
2007-01-11 10:11:20 · answer #6 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
well, while i do believe that evolution has occured and we can prove that, i still think that our bio-structure is too complicated to be spawned by some "big-bang theory". Actually, i can't remember what it was called, but they did a test tube experiment where they proved that although living organisms could have been created by it, there's no way we could have. But i digress...
I dont know why they get offensive, ive never heard of that. I'm pretty sure they're not offended by the word, but by the fact that your atheist. Its a hard idea for some people to grasp...
2007-01-11 09:21:03 · answer #7 · answered by J Balla 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it's the right word to use. I am not a biologist, I do not study evolution for a living. When people call other people "evolutionists", they are not doing so because they believe that those people study evolution for a living. They are implying that evolution is a belief system, and it is usually contrasted with "Creationist", which DOES refer to a belief system. Evolution is not something that we can choose to believe in or not believe in, it is not a religion.
2007-01-11 09:22:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The word is just descriptive. As with any word, it's only offensive if you're offended by it. And just to set the record straight, evolution is not the last word on the subject. There are still gaps. But that's another discussion.
2007-01-11 09:26:43 · answer #9 · answered by jkm65 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm sorry to hear that you are basing your beliefs, and therefore your life, on a faulty assumption. Because science has NOT proven that evolution is a fact. It is a theory. And while it can be tested in many ways, the answer to the question about whether or not all of life is the result of an evolutionary process is still open for debate.
And please don't start telling me about all the "evidence" that proves it. All of the "evidence" is being interpreted based on the assumption that evolution is true. It's not the evidence that I have problems with, but the interpretation of it.
2007-01-11 09:33:11 · answer #10 · answered by Rob M 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It is a tiny bit offensive but I know some biologists have got stuck in to using it - once a words around its hard not to use it - the problem is it implies evolution is a belief, something faith-based which is of course exactly what the ignorant creationists would like to imply - to show that it was equal on some level to their fairy-tale story.
Even the notable Stephen Gould tended to use the word. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
2007-01-11 09:18:59 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋