Evolutionists, how can we call you? Evolutionist is a problem?

Question

One evolutionist complained that I called the evolutionists the evolutionists. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070923053253AA69uZn&r=w
As of now, he received two thumb up. (The thumb down is from me.) Is this the general opinion? Is it that evolution is not a field of study as cryptography or other specialized fields of study are?

We call those who study physics the physicists. We call those
who study mathematics, the mathematicians. We call those who study computer science, the computer scientists. We call those who study cryptography (part of mathematics), the cryptographers. So, how should we call those who study evolution?

Dogzilla: I am just curious to know why "evolutionist" would be a problem. I don't want to debate evolution. I never really been against it, but only had some criticisms against some view that was held amongst some evolutionists.

secretsauce: Are you sure about that? In my case, I had no intention to discredit those who study evolution. The problem must be that there is no community of people who specialize in evolution. You don't have conference on evolution, etc.? I mean, if there was a community like for the cryptographers, etc. you would not mind that we call you the evolutionists -- who cares what creationists say. It's like the name *****. Apparently, some attach a negative connotation to it, but I heard that the ***** themselves don't care because this is actually a correct term.

If you have a specialized community with conference, etc. on evolution, then "biologists" is not sufficient. The only valid explanation that I can see, is that there is actually no field of study with a community studying it (with journals, conference, etc.) for the evolution theory. Is that it? Even then, it is not a priori pejorative, just meaningless.

Well, I did some checks, and you do have journals on evolution and you do have conferences specialized on evolution. So this usually means that there is a community of people that have an interest on this specific subject. If evolution is so fundamental, there should be no problem at all to be called an evolutionist. Anyway, it makes things more complicated, but I suppose I will accept your view on it.

Ok, I think I know what could be the problem. Evolution is not just a domain of study, but also a specific theory. This creates a confusion. If you had a "ist" or an "er" to the name of a theory, like the "Quantumers" for supporters of quantum theory, it doesn't look good. If you had a "ist" or an "er" to the name of a domain of study, like "cryptographers", it's seems fine. So, perhaps you see yourselves more as supporters of a specific theory than people interested in a domain of research irrespectively of the theory.

secretsauce: Ok, fine "evolutionist" was used to mean supporter of the theory of evolution, and somehow these supporters don't like it. However, sincerely, though I don't agree in all views that prevail amongst the supporters of the evolution theory, I would not mind to be called an "evolutionist", even if it means supporter of the theory of evolution. It seems to be a practical name, simpler than "supporters of ...". One could be proud of it. No?

On a related subject. I know that "ism" is usually associated with philosophy and science is not considered a philosophy. However, scientist that know about philosophy do not deny that science adopt physicalism. Also physicalist as a way to name those who support physicalism is also used. What I mean is that in practice, we cannot avoid these "ism" and these "ist".

Answer 1

Biologists, paleontologists, or even "evolutionary biologists."

But I have no problem with "evolutionist." Richard Dawkins uses the term in "The God Delusion." It's not used as a term for someone who studies evolution, but rather someone who generally accepts that macroevolution has occurred.

Answer 2

The only context I see the word "evolutionist" used in is to try and reduce the theory of evolution to a religion. It's done probably a hundred times a day on the R&S board. It's generally meant to imply that anyone who accepts the theory of evolution is a fool with no moral compass, and that the "believers" are nothing more than atheistic devils. Its use there is akin to (but not nearly on the same epithetical level) as people calling those thrifty with money Jews, or calling black people the n word, or calling people displaying moronic behavior Pollocks. I can't think of any instance in which it was meant any other way. This is why the term evolutionist is so unattractive to me and many I know.

Answer 3

The correct term would be biologists. Evolution is accepted as basic to all of the biological sciences so there is not really a need for a separate discipline of evolutionary biology.

Answer 4

Personally, I have no problem with the term 'evolutionist', but 'biologist' would be more appropriate. You cannot be a biologist if you don't understand, and hence believe in, evolution.

Answer 5

'Evolutionist' is a word used by creationists in a derogatory way ... as a 'belief system' ... a 'believer in the religion of evolutionism'. It is a way of putting evolution into the same category as 'creationist' ... as 'creationism' *is*a belief system.

One example of this is the way 'evolutionist' is expanded into a broad category of scientists *outside* evolution. We get questions all the time here challenging 'evolutionists' to explain the origins of life by abiogenesis, or even the origin of the universe by the big bang theory ... both of which are far outside the domain of what the theory of evolution claims to explain.

It is also a way of trying to carve out evolution from science ... to imply that among scientists there are 'evolutionists' and 'non-evolutionists' ... when in fact support for evolution among scientists is almost unanimous.

So it is somewhat like calling someone who believes in the theory of gravity a 'gravityist' ... or in the germ theory of disease a 'germist'.

It would be more correct to say 'supporter of evolution', or 'evolution advocate.' This term is somewhat meaningless inside science (as pretty much *all* scientists support evolution) ... but for purposes of debate with creationists and ID advocates in the general public, these would be more apt terms.

{edit}

Scientists who study evolution itself generally call themselves 'evolutionary biologists'. But the group you are referring to is not just that small group of scientists who *specialize* in evolutionary theory, but a broader category that includes those scientists, and all the other scientists and non-scientists who defend evolutionary theory against attacks from creationists.

The problem is that 'ist' can either mean someone who specializes in the *study* something (as in physicist, chemist, evolutionary biologist), or someone who believes in an 'ism' (a Marxist believes in Marxism, a Methodist believes in Methodism, a Calvinist in Calvinism, a Creationist in Creationism). A physicist is not someone who believes in 'physicism' ... but a scientist who specializes in the *study* of physics.

It is the attempt to associate evolution with an 'ism' that we object to ... and it is clear that this is the association intended, as the word 'evolutionist' is directed not just at scientists who specialize in the *study* of evolution, but at *all* scientists even if it is not their area of specialization, and to non-scientists as well, as long as they support evolution as an idea. That is why it is clearly not intended in the same vein as 'physicist' or 'chemist' but rather in the same vein as 'Marxist' or 'Creationist.'

Evolution is not an 'ism'. It is not a separate belief system from from any other idea or theory in science ... it stems from one fundamental belief only, one in common with all other ideas in science ... a belief in the scientific method.

{edit again}

>"However, scientist that know about philosophy do not deny that science adopt physicalism."

Well, yes and no. Physicalism is the belief that nothing exists other than that which has physical properties. Science is the study of things with physical properties ... but this is not the same as saying that this is *all that exists*. Many scientists allow that there may be other things that exist (e.g. many scientists are theists) ... but that these things are not accessible *to science*.

So science adopts physicalism as *a method*. But science does not adopt physicalism as an overarching belief system or epistemology. You don't have to be a philosophical physicalist to be a scientist. I would say that science is closer to rationalism or even empiricism as a philosophy.

As for whether science itself is an 'ism', I have no problems with that ... *as long as* this includes all of science. It is the effort to paint evolution as an 'ism' isolated from science that we object to.

Answer 6

Evolution is a process in biology. It happens, it's a fact.....Get over it.