Why do religious people use the word "Evolutionist"?

Question

There are NO evolutionists.Belief is not required in the knowledge of facts.You either accept facts or don't.
When you address questions to people that accept facts you can simply address them as "people".The only ones that require a label are those that don't accept the facts.In future can you please use the term "non-deniers of reality".

nemesis7 - you use the word belief again!seriously,open a book or two.

David C - good to see you on here.That is exactly the point.Assume 10 points coming your way.

Answer 1

ha ha Gibbon-boy... its nice to see somebody pick them up on that.

Evolution is from the accusative of the Latin evolutio, "unrolling" and is a simple term for a process in science. Religious folks like to add the ism - generally used by creationists as a pejorative label for the scientific theory of evolution.

In the creation-evolution controversy, those who accept the scientific theory of biological evolution by natural selection or genetic drift are often called "evolutionists", and the theory of evolution itself is referred to as "evolutionism" by creationists.

This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is similar to other "isms", such as Creationism, Evangelism, Judaism, Socialism, Communism, Catholicism. In this way, creationists bolster their claim that the scientific theory of evolution is a belief, dogma, ideology or even a religion, rather than a scientific theory. The terms "evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are rarely used in the scientific community as self-descriptive terms.

Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate, which they are not. But then Creationists are not usually mentally equal to normal folks when it comes to debate are they, they have to try and even up the odds - not in the debate, but for the young minds they wish to poison with their fairy tales.

Long before Darwin, the term evolution was popularised during the 19th century by Herbert Spencer to mean cultural evolution; i.e. the improvement of cultures - it was only later that it acquired its biological meaning. Advocacy of such theory was called evolutionism.

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to science.

It really riles me that Darwin is always trown out as the father of Evoloutionism as well. The ideas are older than Christ - for god sake (sic). Anaximander is generally agreed to have been the first Greek thinker to propound evolutionary ideas. Empedocles, quoted by Aristotle, went further and gave a hypothetical description of evolution that is startlingly similar to natural selection
'Why should not nature work... of necessity? ....(some) things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish.').

By 400 BC, Greek atomists were teaching that the sun, earth, life, humans, civilization, and society emerged over eons from the eternal atoms colliding and vibrating in the void. In the epic poem On the Nature of Things, the Roman atomist Lucretius in about 60 BC described the stages of the living earth coming to be what it is.
"The earth and sun formed from swirls of dust congregated from atoms colliding and vibrating in the void; early plants and animals sprang from the early earth's own substance because of the insistence of the atoms that formed the earth; the aging earth gave birth to a succession of animals including a series of progressively less brutish humans that made a succession of improved tools, laws, and civilizations with increasing complexity finally arriving at the current earth and lifeforms as they are."

The church stamped on these ideas, and held back science in the West for the next 1400 years although they continued to be discussed in the Islamic world. The ideas they try to argue are in fact older than the backward tribes of Israel and thier stupid supersticions, and it is an perversion of human intellect that these religious idiots still puke the same old rubbish at us 'normal' thinkers.

Answer 2

Suppose you find a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude? Would you think that someone dropped this watch? Or would you suppose that the watch came by itself? Of course no sane person would say that the watch just happened to emerge from the sand. All the intricate working parts could not simply develop from the metals that lay buried in the earth. The watch must have a manufacturer. If a watch tells accurate time we expect the manufacturer must be intelligent. Blind chance cannot produce a working watch. Would u not conclude that there does exist a watchmaker? An intelligent watchmaker? One who appreciates beauty? Such is God who made us. Now the question is:Who is a god? The most concise definition of God is given in the four verses of Surah Ikhlaas which is Chapter 112 of the Qur’an: «"Say: He is Allah, The One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him."» Suppose I manufacture a video cassette recorder (VCR). Do I have to become a VCR to know what is good or what is bad for the VCR? What do I do? I write an instruction manual. Do not drop it from a height or it will get damaged. Do not immerse it in water or it will get ruined". This instruction manual lists the various do’s and don’ts for the machine. Just like that god has sent an instruction manual to us.He chooses a man amongst men to deliver the message and communicates with him at a higher level through the medium of revelations. Such chosen men are called messengers and prophets of God. So a person following this instruction manual is termed"religious" so how can he be ignorent if he follows the commands of the divine. «"Say: Call upon Allah, or Call upon Rahman (The Most Merciful): By whatever name you call Upon Him, (it is well): For to Him belong The Most Beautiful Names."[»Al-Qur’an 17:110]

Answer 3

The twonks above clearly think that belief is the same as knowledge.One touches on the truth - no facts are absolute.But that is a notion that can be took to the extreme - define absolute.Are we taking it to the point where I cannot state as absolute fact that I exist?Or just that facts are simply accepted as truth by observable evidence.
Seeing as 98% of the scientific community accepts evolution as fact,you are right in that it requires no belief.

Answer 4

And you are a top contributor?
Of COURSE THERE"S BELIEF IN KNOWLEDGE!!!Is a matter of fact, knowledge is the acceptance of beliefs, or you can call it theories, or hypothesis. The facts whether are based on religious or scientific "beliefs" are not at all absolute. The term "evolutionists" it's not a label as neither is "religious", which you seem to also, use as a label. Religion not only pertains to "Theists", religion is a term that designates a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. So "evolutionists" could be considered religious people also.
Now, "non-deniers of reality"? What's that stupid babbling?
"Realists" will do the job, if I understand correctly what you meant.
Top Contributor...sheez.
Don't embarrass the real, "NON-DENIERS OF REALITY".

Answer 5

It's a dishonest argumentative tactic used to spread misinformation. Using wordplay to appeal to people's prejudices has been around for a long time. "Evolutionist" creates the image that "belief" in evolution has the same nature as the belief in God (or any religious doctrine). It's similar to the pro-life/pro-choice debate. "Pro-life" implies that all other opinions are somehow "anti-life", while "pro-choice" gives the impression that the other side is authoritarian and misogynistic. The obviously real dichotomy (that I suggest we adopt) is pro-abortion/anti-abortion. Words are powerful, and they can be used to trick people. All propaganda is based on this concept.

Answer 6

It is further evidence of their lack of a good education.

All those Jesusists, and Godists, just don't have time to learn English or other languages. I mean as an Englishist I learned grammar and spelling and even how to use a dictionary. I guess I'm a dictionist too.

Answer 7

They seem obsessed with labels, with categorizing people, but, like everything else about the mind state of someone who believes without evidence, it's illogical and irrational.

Answer 8

Because they think it is more insulting and provoking than saying 'gravitationist' or somesuch nonsense.

It also neatly outlines their contempt for science while placing their religion central to their 'argument'.

A hat trick!

(PS not all religious people do this. You could say 'some' religious people and be more correct)

Answer 9

It's an insult, they are trying to characterise people who accept science as being as blind and dogmatic as they are, and they can't make that characterisation stick using reason or logic or evidence so they're left with playing word games.

Answer 10

You seem to contradict yourself, why do we need any terminology. I am a Christian but do not know about this word religious. Everybody does something religiously wether its watching soaps, doing the same thing regularly or whatever.