Do biologists who believe in evolution ever refer to themselves as "evolutionists"? Or is this strictly a term used by nonbelievers to refer to them?
evolutionist
I think the matter is that "evolutionist" is only needed to be the opposite term of "creationist", so it will only come up in discussions about creationism versus evolution. But it can be used by either side... it might be that some evolutionists don't like the word "evolutionist", but I can't think of a more convenient term.
- Kef
- Kef
I think the antimatter is that "creationist" is only needed to be the opposite term of "evolutionist", so it will only come up in discussions about evolution versus creationism.
Touché. But it's usually the creationists themselves who bring it up...
Biologists don't call themselves "evolutionists", they call themselves "scientists".
Yes, but there are scientists who don't believe in evolution. Such scientists are almost never geologists or biologists, but they're scientists nonetheless.
One doesn't have to be a "scientist" to be an evolutionist just as one doesn't have to be a "scientist" to be a creationist.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand, in the evolution debate the two sides are typically referred to as "Darwinism" and "Intelligent Design." Evolutionist is rarely heard because no one denies that change occurs over time (the strict definition of "evolution" i.e. "change" does happen) while Darwinism refers to Darwin's theories on natural selection.
People are starting to abandon the term "creationist" as well because of its implication that there is no science involved. (Hence the newer term "Intelligent Design Theory" it doesn't sound any more scientific than "creationism" per se, but it has the word "theory" next to it comes across that way).
Anything with -ism at the end is going to tend to be a deeply held belief (Hinduism, Judaism, libertarianism, communism, etc.) and connotes a kind of blind faith, so the more respectful members of both sides of the evolution debate tend to avoid those terms out of respect for each others research, no matter what their ideology may be.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand, in the evolution debate the two sides are typically referred to as "Darwinism" and "Intelligent Design." Evolutionist is rarely heard because no one denies that change occurs over time (the strict definition of "evolution" i.e. "change" does happen) while Darwinism refers to Darwin's theories on natural selection.
People are starting to abandon the term "creationist" as well because of its implication that there is no science involved. (Hence the newer term "Intelligent Design Theory" it doesn't sound any more scientific than "creationism" per se, but it has the word "theory" next to it comes across that way).
Anything with -ism at the end is going to tend to be a deeply held belief (Hinduism, Judaism, libertarianism, communism, etc.) and connotes a kind of blind faith, so the more respectful members of both sides of the evolution debate tend to avoid those terms out of respect for each others research, no matter what their ideology may be.
"Intelligent Design Theory" is a misnomer designed to confuse. This is not a theiry in the scientific sense of the word.
I asked the same question yesterday in the Languages forum, but I got not answer. To me, Evolutionism is a widely accepted theory in the scientist community. Saying "evolutionist scientists" is the same as saying "relativist scientists".
It was actually first meant to address certain problems with evolutionary theory but the scientific community wouldn't publish it.
I'm not gonna debate its lack of merit, but it's hardly meant to confuse.
I'm not gonna debate its lack of merit, but it's hardly meant to confuse.
When I said "merit" I meant "scientific merit."
And yes, it does seem redundant to say "evolutionist" or "Darwinist" scientist.
And yes, it does seem redundant to say "evolutionist" or "Darwinist" scientist.
O-kay, Adolfo...
How's this? Scientists who still hold to the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin.
Good scientists will look at theories and change their opinions as they learn more. Oh sure, some people still seem to believe in evolution, but some of the brightest minds in science have been looking at other explanations. Specifically, I can mention John Kenyon whose books are probably well-known to some college students of a certain era.
Not all of these scientists are "creationists" or "Christians", although I'm sure some of them are.
It would be interesting to have some of them comment here.
How's this? Scientists who still hold to the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin.
Good scientists will look at theories and change their opinions as they learn more. Oh sure, some people still seem to believe in evolution, but some of the brightest minds in science have been looking at other explanations. Specifically, I can mention John Kenyon whose books are probably well-known to some college students of a certain era.
Not all of these scientists are "creationists" or "Christians", although I'm sure some of them are.
It would be interesting to have some of them comment here.
I think I wrote "evolutionary scientist" and that's what piqued Adolfo's interest.
I think I wrote "evolutionary scientist" and that's what piqued Adolfo's interest.
I'm sorry, it's Dean Kenyon, not John Kenyon.
I'm sorry, it's Dean Kenyon, not John Kenyon.
Adolfo, here's my post. Pls note I did not write "Evolutionist scientist" in my post, but "evolutionary"...lol.
Do many linguists take the point of view of Evolutionary scientists?
This seems a little backward to me.
Do many linguists take the point of view of Evolutionary scientists?
This seems a little backward to me.