"Evolutionist"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2013, 08:04 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
I get the irritation, but for me, I just consider the source. The insult lacks any weight if it's just describing you as someone who knows the truth. I have pretty big, sloped shoulders though. Drinking Beverage

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
(09-10-2013 03:57 PM)Teen-skeptic-go! Wrote:  I HATE THIS WORD! I hate it when people use it, I hate that it even has it's own dictionary entry, I DESPISE IT! However, it isn't nearly as bad as "Darwinist."

I am currently off my nut so this likely isn't going to be my most lucid and well-composed post.

My initial understanding of the term "evolutionist" was the same as yours, i.e. I thought it simply meant someone that subscribes to the idea that speciation is due to natural selection. However, I was to find out that when theists use it they generally do not mean it to be construed so narrowly. They see metaphysical naturalism as appealing to a general process of evolution, i.e. the incremental production of complexity from simple elements. Thus naturalistic abiogenenesis is "evolutionist" as is naturalistic cosmogeny. IIRC I first encountered this notion in a review of The God Delusion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
Theist seem to think there is a Law that requires people to believe in something.
There is no reason you have to believe in anything, I only think things are probable.

Belief can = (dogma) this is the absolute truth and i'm sticking to no matter what
or = (Skeptic) this is what i currently think to be most probable based on my research of research

Evolution I think to be the most probable explanation for what we can observe.

Creationists truly think we have dogma for evolution and actively reject GOD, you need to explain to them your active rejection of GOD is as valid as your active rejection of Zeus + insert 10 mythical beings, before getting into conversation.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
10-10-2013, 02:09 PM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2013 02:30 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: "Evolutionist"
I wholly agree. It's not annoying as a word, in and of itself. But becomes massively annoying because of why it's used.

If “evolutionist” were people who studied evolution in college, got a bachelors, or masters degree in evolution, and now work as an evolutionist studying evolution, then the word wouldn’t bother me. But there are people who do that and they are called biologist. There is no need for the gratuitous word. It’s also super annoying because it exposed the theist who uses it. Secular people don’t have any use for the word “evolutionist” because they use words that already exist like, again, biologist, or paleontologist, zoologist, physical anthropologist (<-that’s me!), botanist, virologist, etc… The “evolutionist” is implied in those fields, because you can only understand those disciples of study through the lens of evolution.

It’s not the “evolutionist” who uses the term. It’s the theist who use it, not only for the scientist in those fields mentioned above, but also for anyone who accepts the theory as true, regardless of their degree of study or practice with it. Everyone, even all theists, I would hope, believe in biology. That is to say, believe in living organisms, at the very least. We don’t refer to all of them as biologist. We all believe in stars, but don't refer to each other as astrologist. It’s an unnecessary “ist” to lable people with.

In an ironic twist, they feel putting an “ist” suffix labels the person as a “believer in”. Putting that person’s “belief” on the same level as religious belief. They use this supposed equivalency to, again ironically, dismiss the “evolutionist” point of view as simply a belief system, an “ism”, not discipline of study and research. They also do it by affixing “ist” to things like “naturalist”, “materialist”, or like stated in the OP, “Darwinist”. I agree by the way, that last one is the most annoying of all. I can ignore “evolutionist” to some degree. But “Darwinist” is the worst. That implies belief in Darwin, not evolution. I know in their minds they think they are saying the same thing as “evolutionist”, but that’s not what that word would even mean, and they are trying to imply something more insidious with “Darwinist”. That the person who accepts the truth of evolution is more concerned with Darwin as a figure, like our “Christ”, and protecting his theory, than we are concerned about evolution itself. It’s an attempt to relegate it, again ironically, to the status of religious belief, which they can ironically more easily dismiss a religious belief than if it were considered science.

It’s so transparent. But unfortunately not transparent to those who don’t follow evolution, so they think it makes sense to use. In another ironic feat of the theists’ is the use of that very same “ism” labeling scheme to lower the rank of evolution to a religion, they at the same time use “ism” to raise religious belief in creation to creationism, which they think gives it more of a scientific feel, making it seem to other theist that it’s more of a discipline of scientific study. A scientific field equal with all other scientific fields. Clearly this is not the case.

This is also why I don’t love the term atheist to describe non believers. By making a term it implies that it is something, and by sharing an “ist” suffix with theist, it implies a belief. A belief in not believing I guess. I don’t want to argue this point again, I already did it the other day. But I do at least understand the current need to use the term atheist, even though it is inherently a non term. But like someone else stated, hopefully reason will give away enough that one day there will be no reason to label anyone an “evolutionist” or an “atheist” because they will simply be self evident facts, in the case of evolution, or lack false belief in “God” or “gods” requiring “atheism” to refute.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
10-10-2013, 02:19 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
And to me the terms are more a grating on my nerves, than something that something to fight over ultimatly. Just every time I hear it used I mentally roll my eyes, then move on.

It's good for identifying people at least. I was asked a while back by someone, in casual conversation that was pertinent, if I was an "evolutionist". Right then and there this told me more about who this person was with out me having to ask a thing.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
10-10-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
It just occured to me what we need to do in responce whenever we where someone use "evolutionist" or it's like. They already like creationist, so that won't help, but we could call them "supernaturalist". You know just for fun.

After all, one who is religious at all is a Supernaturalist. Rather than call them by what they refer to themselves by, Christian, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, or whatever, just call them all Supernaturalist. It is after all what they are.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
10-10-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
They are also "floodist", and "resurrectionist".

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 07:54 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
hey, its better than darwiniack. courtesy of Ann Coulter. I became physically sick reading part of her book. I don't know what would happen if I read it all..maybe get convulsions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 09:35 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
Or we can call them Chr"ists."

[Image: ezgif_save_1.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 12:13 AM
RE: "Evolutionist"
Bibleist? Undecided

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: