Evolutionists: Exactly what is wrong with the word "evolutionist" all of a sudden?

Question

This question may surprise some of you as much as the notion surprises me, but there are a few people here complaining that the use of the word "evolution-IST" somehow undervalues the validity of the facts underpinning evolutionary theory. The -ist part doesn't confer the status of unsupported belief onto one's acceptance of a concept and it doesn't make it derogatory (it's the tone of the people using a word that does that). You wouldn't object to people describing themselves as a realist, a feminist or a pianist, would you?

So my question, directed specifically at that minority who seem to think that the -ist in evolutionist somehow undermines it, is - what are you on about?

Is BIOLOGIST a religion?!

Sorry guys, this suggests some sort of capitulation to ideas about language that suit the religiously minded. Adding "-ist" does NOT make a word describe a religion. Language is not that inflexible. Why don't we have Christ-ists? How come taxidermists don't worship taxidermy?

And what is with this "made up word" business? Where do you think words come from? The word evolutionist is defined as one who is a proponent of the biological principles of evolutionary theory. Any weight added to is arbitrary and we take it or leave it. I leave it.

I see Wikipedia describes this argument as being a particularly American issue driven by opponents of evolution. Why would you concede a point like that without a fight? Let THEM learn that the boundaries of language are not limited to what they want them to be. We are not constrained by the definitions that suit them.
_

Answer 1

"Evolutionist" is not a word. The "-ist" implies that the person "believes" in evolution. One does not "believe" or "disbelieve" in evolution; one either accepts or ignores its reality.

Answer 2

I really don't care. I suppose some folks object based on the illusion that adding -ist implies a belief system akin to a religion. Since I know that evolution is an existing process and that natural selection is the controversial theory that the preponderant body of evidence supports as the mechanism of evolution, I don't care. When one does not have a supportable, intelligent answer, one resorts to nonsense labeling in order to focus insignificant criticism and make it easier to vilify.

Answer 3

It is usually offered as a counter to creationism, as in "Evolutionists vs. Creationists"

"Evolutionist", written in that context, implies that evolution is a belief system, and it is not. Evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is theological. I dislike seeing the two terms set up in counterpoint like that, because there are relevant dissimilarities between the two that are minimized. Evolution is not a religion, and there is no such thing as "evolutionism". Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution should not be presented as a belief system by anyone.

Answer 4

Because evolution is not a religion, Is a scientific Theory. I believe that the possibility that we came from a apes is more real than the possibility that we were made by a supreme been. But that does not mean that I have a temple dedicated to praise apes.

Answer 5

It was common, yet then snobbery positioned an end to it. ain't 1706, initially a contraction of am no longer, and in suitable use with that experience till all of it began for use as a accepted contraction for are no longer, isn't, and so on., in early 19c. Cockney dialect of London, popularized by ability of representations of this in Dickens, and so on., which brought about the observe being banished from ideal English.

Answer 6

It implies that the "evolutionist" believes in evolution rather than accepting it as a scientific theory. There is no such branch of science or movement as "evolutionism", just as there's no such thing as general-relativityism or big-bangism or cellism

Answer 7

Are you referring to we evolutionists of The Church of Evolution who all wear our billion yr old raptor bones on chains round our necks and go around hotels leaving copies of The Origin Of The Species in bedside cabinets. Praise be to Darwin!

Answer 8

I think the attempt though is to disconnect "biology" from "evolution". Any question addressed to "evolutionists" should be addressed to biologists, since evolution is the unifying theory of biology.

Answer 9

Well you see, they like to compare the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity. They say, "What do you say gravitists?" but here is the point: gravity is easily observable in our natural environment. You can drop a pencil and it wall fall down. But if you look at a chimp for years, it will always stay a chimp. They say it takes millions of years, but if I took that pencil and dropped it and it didn't move for 10,000,000 years, I would be hard-pressed to believe in gravity.

Answer 10

Because the truth hurts.

The religion of Evolution is making science God.

This cult of egoist are worshiping self.

Wayne Murray

The introduction to Genesis and to the whole Bible ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true the other false. All of God’s works are good, great, wondrous, and perfect.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is only seen in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade to the plowshare to machines. But the birds build their nests today as at the beginning. There is growth and development within man, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another.

For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be evident stages of evolution today. You would be able to find species in many stages of evolution in nature right now. For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be no God. And that’s exactly what evolutionists believe and are trying prove. The evolutionist bases his or her conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of the manuscripts.

Answer 11

It turns the acceptance of evolution into a philosophy rather than focusing on the science.

This is not about philosophy; it is about scientific inquiry, the use of the scientific method and the idea that the supernatural has no role in science.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^