Pete

The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position' date=' ...

[/quote']

I strongly disagree. I've provided a solid argument for my position and provided exceptionally strong support for it. My position can be summarized by the following statements

 

1) My "position" is that I started this thread so that I could learn (or come closer to understanding) the reason(s) that such strong negative emotions arise in sometimes when the term evolutionist is used

 

2) The term evolutionist is defined as a person who either adheres to the theory of evolution or a person who studies evolution.

 

3) Some people object to the term evolutionist as well as its use, because they see it as a derogatory term. There are several reasons for this (see discussion for details regarding definition of the term believe)

 

4) Several noted evolutionary biologists use the word evolutionist in some of their writings, as well as to describe themselves.

 

5) In the same way a person who studies physics is referred to as a physicist, a person who studies evolution is called an evolutionist.

 

6) The use of the term evolutionist seems to be similar to the use of the term relativist. I.e. its uncommon for an evolutionist to use the term in texts or scientific journals etc. Its not uncommon to see it used in texts written for the general public.

 

7) The claim the only people who use it are creationists was proven to be wrong.

 

8) I am satisfied with what I came here to learn. I got my answer. The offense of the term is perhaps similar to how how I'd feel if someone referred to me, being pro-choice, as an abortionist. That may be a bit of an exageration though.

 

9) The proposition Religious people can be rational (to a point), but creationists cannot be. is wrong.

 

...has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose' date=' or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion.

[/quote']

Since it is impossible for the OP or any participant to control what is being posted in a thread I cannot reasonably be expected to provide direction. When it became clear that it was turning bad I requested that the thread be locked. Contrary to your claim I have not actively encouraged a disorderly discussion. In fact I've done the opposite. I have tried to dissuade participants from going off topic. I refused to respond to certain comments (trolls) by certain posters because to do so would lead to trouble.

 

I even asked people to stop making ad hominem attacks. By the way, for those of you who don't know what an ad hominem attack is then I'll post the definition here. From [b[Practical Logic: An Antidote for Uncritical Thinking[/b] by Soccie and Barry, page 129

The authors use the term fallacious personal attack to refer to ad hominem attack. It is an attack on the arguer rather than the argument. They write

A fallacious personal attack is an argument that claims to be a refutation of an opponent's argument when in fact attacks the opponent. The personal attack fallacy comes in many forms, and we'll look at three of them: character assassination, circumstantial, and tu quoque.

Example: I had just responded to a comment made by Mokele which I was unsure of its meaning. So I asked him a series of questions for which the answers would lead me to understand what Mokele's point was.

Sayonara³[/b]]

For ****'s sake Pmb' date=' stop being so effing pedantic and deliberately obtuse.

[/quote']

Sayonara³ stated that the reason he posted this insult me (i.e. that I was being deliberately obtuse) was that it was an attempt to get the thread under control.

 

This was clearly an ad hominem attack. because it contained an insult (obtuse = : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive , stupid b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression). Perhaps Sayonara³ is unaware that calling someone deliberately obtuse can be interpreted as an insult. If he is unaware of that then perhaps he shouldn't be a moderator. In any case I asked that it stop. But what followed was posters denouncing me and my character in one way or another rather than restricting themselves to the subject of this thread.

 

One major reason why this kind of thing happens so often - the person posting personal remarks doesn't know, or perhaps doesn't care, that his remarks are or can be offensive to the person they are targeted at. Its for this reason people should stop talking about a person and instead address the argument and the argument only.

The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open.

[/QUOTe]

I cannot control the offending people who post at this forum. Neither can I add them to my ignore list. Its for that reason I asked that this thread be closed. Its turned into a pmb-bashing thread.

 

You can close it if you'd like. Its served the purpose I started if for. If you look at earlier posts you'll see that I posted the following comment I myself urge you to lock this thread. I asked that because I was convinced that this thread as going to take a bad turn.

If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post' date=' then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy.

[/quote']

Excellent Klaynos. Thank you.

Some of you answered the question well. Some did not. None of you acknowledged that several extremely well-regarded evolutionary biologists call themselves evolutionists. This thread went ballistic in part because of some rather intolerant responses. Re-read the OP. It wasn't particularly pedantic. Re-read post #3. That's where things started going downhill.

Since iNow is on my ignore list and I never read that post. I wonder if that played some role in the heat that followed.

A square or circle doesn't have a volume/mass therefore it has no moment of inertia.

That the question is regards to a plate can be understood from the context in which the question was asked. In this case we know its really a very thin plate that is being asked about. This notion arises in other areas of physics. For example: in many physics applications one deals with things whose thickness is small in comparison to its area like a very thin piece of paper. One then assigns a surface mass density rather than a volume mass density. The same thing holds for a long thin rod. In that case one uses the approximation of a linear mass density.

You'll notice that this never came up in another thread on a similar topic here. See http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24161

Notice that the moments of inertia given in this table

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/torque/Q.torque.inertia.html

are with respect to geometric objects e.g. rectangular plane

I hope you don't lose any of your respect for my saying so.

No. Of course not. I want to make it clear that I based my opinion of yours and D H's intelligence' date=' not on whether you like me personally or not, but on the quality of the way that you and he present your arguements. It shows that you're both very good at logic and critical thinking. I can certainly appreciate the intelligence of people who don't like me. Its not like I was trying to suck up to you either of you. Its not in my nature and I suck at it. That's one of the things I hated when I was in the military, i.e. the often required [i']sucking up to officers.[/i].

I didn't respond to your comment on regarding being pedantic since nobody really wants to discuss it and discussing/commenting on that accusation would side track this thread more than it has already. Therefore please don't assume that I'm ignoring you, okay?

You have responded to the first line only,

That's correct. I did so for a very good reason. I read your's and Phi's responses and decided that to respond would only keep this thread off track, especiallly since all I see in those responses are comments based on false assumptions and thus have no real substance to them and I won't respond to assertions that were made on false impressions of what you thought my intent was and the like

However, if you're truly curious and want me to actually explain why then I'll do so in PM. But that means that only you can read it and not the entire board. Are you so sure that's what you'd want? Nobody here whom I have a great deal of respect for, such as Mr Skeptic and D H, has made such baseless accusations. That's because they're very intelligent people.

pmb "Since the R_tt= 0 in a vacuum then "amount of bending in time" = 0 in a vacuum."

that seems okay if a vacuum means no energy.without ether what could bend in a vacuum?

By vacuum I mean [math]T_{\mu\nu}[/math] = 0 for all [math]\mu,\nu[/math].

Well that was a very childish response. Please stop being so arrogant and closed minded and also please stop posting ad hominem attacks.

Do I need to?

Yes.

You suggest some familiarity with GR.

 

Have a look at the PlanetMath areticle on the Ricci tensor.

I'll read more about that in the future but for now lets address your definition

[math]R_{tt}[/math]= "amount of bending in time"

Since the [math]R_{tt}[/math] = 0 in a vacuum then "amount of bending in time" = 0 in a vacuum. What is that suppposed to be telling us?

[math]R_{tt}[/math] = 0 comes from Einstein's field equation written in the form (let [math]k = 8\piG/c^4[/math]

[math]R_{\mu\nu} = -k(T_{\mu\nu} - (1/2)g_{\mu\nu}T)[/math]

In vacuum [math]T_{\mu\nu} = 0[/math] and therefore T = 0 giving [math]R_{\mu\nu}[/math] = 0 and therefore [math]R_{tt}[/math] = 0.

I thought about contacting some of the art departments in the local universities in my area for help from a student but I'm not exacty sure if this would be the best approach. We don't have a lot of extra income right now like a lot of people so we are trying to keep the cost down somehow. Any of your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Please keep your replies serous though. I don't mind answering any questions concerning my wife's therapy or what we are trying to do. Regards, DocHyder.

I recommend going with your first idea. Go to a university and ask around. Eplain the problem. You'd be surprised at how many really nice people there are in the world who just want to help others.

Personally' date=' I know a lot of evolutionary biologists, and I don't know any who use the term "evolutionist".

[/quote']

Are you implying that someone in this thread asserted that all evolution scientists use the term? If so then I can't find it. I know that I’d never make such an unfounded claim. I seriously doubt that anyone posting in this thread would either. It seems to me that you’re making argument in support of iNow’s (erroneous) claim that no evolutionary scientist uses the term. I'm sure that you know that's not a logical conclusion. It’s quite possible that there are those who use it that you've never met or seen them use in print. I’ve proven above that this is not true.

 

Consider an analogous example: I myself have no immediate recollection of a physicist, who specialize in relativity, using the term relativist. I wouldn’t conclude from this that there are no physicists who specialize in relativity who don't use it. Especially since I recall some of them doing so.

 

Not knowing of and not having heard of something is an not a good reason to assume that its not used. I once made such a mistake of that nature (Once!). Someone once told me that their degree was in Gravitational Physics . I never heard of a degree which was called Gravitational Physics, so I immediately claimed he was wrong. The usual ad hominem attack followed. After the normal rounds of insults I decided to search the web to see if I could find an example of it. To my surprise I did find a web site in which someone wrote that this person earned a Ph.D. in Gravitational Physics. I was amazed. The most amazing part was that I knew of this person and he’s an expert in the field. I made sure I never made that error in logic again. If anyone is curious, the person I found with this degree was none other than the well-known physicist Dr. Robert L. Forward!

Regardless of validity, definitions or anything else, the term has been poisoned by the creationists, and nobody uses it.

… and nobody uses it. I already provided one example of a person who uses it in my posts above. Even the laymen at the website who insulted me for using it told me that Richard Dawkins himself uses the term in books on evolution. I gave an example from Ernst Mayr’s book in the first post in this. Did you not see it or did you ignore it? DH noticed this as evidenced by his comment above, i.e.

As pmb noted, several biologists do use the word evolutionist to describe themselves.

Mr Skeptic asked Mokele the following question

What then would you call someone who accepts the theory of evolution?

Mokele responded

A rational' date=' thinking human being?

[/quote']

It appears that Mokele didn't understand the reason why Mr Skeptic ask the question. The context in which the question was asked made it clear that Mr Skeptic was inquiring of Mokele what he'd use as a synonym for evolutionist that he'd prefer to use and not object to. He was not asking for your opinion of such a person.

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is.

Huh? I find that hard to believe' date=' unless of course, you didn’t read the opening post

Please read it again;

Can someone, perhaps someone well versed in psychology, shed some light on why some people get so pissed off by such a universally used term like "evolutionist"?

I recently explained that I got a reasonable answer to my question

If some evolution-layman (evolution experts don't see to have this problem) perceive the use of the term evolutionist as being used to describe someone who accepts evolution on faith only then I can understand the anger. That seems to be iNow and Phi_for all's objection. That would seem to explain the psychological reason behind all this.

Since those comments were quite clear and posted for all to view then I'm confused by your comment I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is.

 

Now that I’ve once again explained the purpose of this thread do you understand now?

The term exists' date=' could be used, but isn't for a variety of reasons which are unlikely to change anytime soon.

[/quote']

As I explained above to iNow, but isn't is a false statement. And I've demonstrated that its false. Why did you ignore the proof given to you? If you discard it as no proof at all then why didn’t you make an attempt to back up your claim?

Given that there's nothing beneficial about this term over the current terminology, I fail to see the issue.

And what is this current terminology that you're referring to? Please provide an example from either the scholarly literature or layman’s literature on evolution to substantiate your claim.

 

Your argument is irrelevant since you're basing it on your personal opinion that there's nothing beneficial about it. Others who use it (such as some evolution scientists) obviously do believe that it’s beneficial for those instances in which they use it. As DH already explained, it is a simpler and "sleeker" term to use than evolution scientist or what have you. As DH has also eloquently pointed out there are there are physicists, chemists, physicists, biologists, geologists, etc.

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. The term exists' date=' could be used, but isn't for a variety of reasons which are unlikely to change anytime soon. Given that there's nothing beneficial about this term over the current terminology, I fail to see the issue.

[/quote']

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. Don’t you mean that you’re not sure what the point of purpose of this thread is. If so then I don’t see why you don’t know the purpose of it. The opening post explained the purpose, i.e. Can someone, perhaps someone well versed in psychology, shed some light on why some people get so pissed off by such a universally used term like "evolutionist"?

 

And in a broad sense I even came to have my questioned answered.

 

Religious people can be rational (to a point), but creationists cannot be.

That is quite untrue. I myself am a creationist and an evolutionist. Such a position is based on theistic evolution. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution. I copied a page out of a text on evolution, which states

In 1996, for example, Pope John Paul II acknowledged that Darwin evolution was a firmly established scientific result and stated that accepting Darwinism was compatible with traditional understanding of God.

The book In the Beginning … Biblical Creation and Science by Nathan Aviezer is an excellent example of an attempt of establishing the compatibility of Genesis with modern science.

However' date=' since our thought process is dependent upon labels, …

[/quote']

That is an invalid assertion. Use of terms like Biologist, Chemist, Physicist, Relativist, etc. don’t make our thought process is dependent upon labels. There is no basis for such an assertion.

Definitions of evolutionist on the Web:

As commonly used' date=' a person who believes that all life on earth came from slowly changing natural processes operating over billions of years.

http://www.ccel.us/gange.glossary.html

[/quote']

Awesome reference my good man!

And again a wrong depiction of evolution. *sigh*

Making a statement in that manner is not useful to anyone.

 

Pmb' date=' if you can bring yourself to respond to this post,…

[/quote']

What’s with the attitude Phi? I respond to all posts in which the poster is not being rude, employing very poor arguments and not posted by someone who is on my ignore list.

I urge you to point out where you think I have deleted anything.

Thank you for pointing that out Phi. I made a mistake. I wrote a post and then posted it. When I came back later I looked for the post it was gone. Since you are a moderator I assumed that you deleted it. In another science forum I used to go to that was the way moderators sometimes did things. I may have confused their actions with yours (or that forum with this one). I humbly apologize for making an invalid accusation.

Frankly, I am baffled by your hostility.

The only comment in this thread which could possibly be taken as hostile is my comment

Especially before Phi comes back and again deletes important content

I now see that I posted that response with an invalid perception in mind. I truly did think you deleted an important post of mind.

Is this typical of your reactions at that other forum you mentioned?

This is an example of a comment that I don’t respond to for the reason described above. In this case its basically an ad hominem attack. Shame on you.

Not at all. You pointed to the answer. Why struggle with words when someone already did it for you? Good post. I'm on you side here.

Merged post follows:

what actually is a time, is a confusing question. i have got a real funny answer for it. can we explain time as distance between two point relative to observer with velocity c in the universe?? as i am a amature, this is a vague idea to think of(no scientific ideas or thoeries to support my idea). what actually is a time??

I'll be leaving soon due to some health problems (and probably won't be back) so I was wondering if, in the mean time, you'd like to read more about this from scans of the physics texts I have on this topic. I can scan the pages in and upload them to my personal website if you'd like?

If you pick local coordinates [math]\{t, x,y,z\}[/math] then why not say something about curvature in the [math]t[/math] direction or something like that?

The issue appears to be about personal vindication for a stupid flame war on a different forum,

I came here in hopes that some psychologists would choose to enter the discussion. I wanted to understand the psychology behind such anger and hatred which persisted even in the complete absence of creationists. I came to the psychology sub forum in hopes a psychologist would join in.

I had no intention about discussing the same thing we did at that other forum since it wasn't really a discussion but a nonstop stream of flames. I didn't intend to get into a debate here about the term either since there is nothing it which I'm not 100% clear on.

I had said before that I already got my answer, i.e. I wrote

If some evolution-layman (evolution experts don't see to have this problem) perceive the use of the term evolutionist as being used to describe someone who accepts evolution on faith only then I can understand the anger. That seems to be iNow and Phi_for all's objection. That would seem to explain the psychological reason behind all this.

I myself urge you to lock this thread. Especially before Phi comes back and again deletes important content.

I find that argument quite ludicrous.

And I find yours to be the same and then some. You've applied poor reasoning to your arguements and have backpeddeled when you made mistaks.

For that reason I won't be reading or responding any of your posts in the future. Its a darn shame I can't put you on my ignore list.

More fundamentally, I think you can to an extent think of things "bending in time" viz [math]R_{tt}[/math]= "amount of bending in time" say, i.e. the time-time component of the Ricci tensor. Why not?

The term bending is not one that is well defined in the context of general relativity. It cannot be said that matter curves time because no meaning can be applied to the curvature of 1-dimensional manifold.

However I've seen relativists use the term "bend" to refer to gravitational time dilation. That usage also applies in the absense of spatial curvature.

The ONLY people who use it are creationists.

Wrong! You've just proven that you don't know that experts in evolution use the term evolution. Such scientists include the renowned expert Ernst Mayr who wrote the excellant book What Evolution Is. Richard Dawkins uses it too. I'd post more examples but I've embarrassed you enough. The only hope you have now of your ignorance not being revealed is to hope that nobody here will open that book. lol!

For those of you out there who'd like to verify that this is the case you can use Google to read this book online. If you aren't sure how to then please let me know and I'll post instructions to walk you through it.

iNow - I forgot why I placed you on my ignore list so I viewed two of your posts. Now I recall, i.e. I forgot what an abusive person you are .. in the least that is. I'm actually being kind about this! I also see that you make bogus claims as if they were God's honest truth. Thanks for reminding me why I placed you on that list.

There you go. A word invented by man and defined by man.

I'm confused. Do you think that there is a problem with that? After all every single word that has ever existed on this planet was invented by a human and defined by a human. What's the objection to that?

I just realized a major flaw in the opening post. There is a huge difference between bad boy and asshole. I had a friend who as a bad boy but who was a very nice guy. A friend of mine dated him. Years later she was telling me about her regrets about that. At that time the "bad boy" thing was exciting to her. All that changed when she grew up and she was embarassed that she went out with him. I hear that a lot.

I'd agree that both Darwinist and Evolutionist with a capital E, probably mean you are talking to a creationist who is probably using the labels as a way of belittling his opponents.

That's understandable in the sense that in communicating in text carries with it the danger of unintentionally insulting someone. In this case the capital E thing has never been raised by those people who attacked me when I wrote the term evolutionist. Especially since I used it to refer to myself too.

Incorrect. I made no generalization which involved "the all people".

Actually no, it is not incorrect .

I said that a term like "evolutionist" can cause indignation in people who understand evolution to be true rather than having faith that it is true.

To be precise you wrote

"Evolutionist" more or less implies a "belief" in evolution. Since evolution is one of the most thoroughly researched and documented scientific theories ever put forth, an implication that relegates it to some kind of faith causes simple indignation, no real psychological explanation beyond that needed. Science is interested in the natural, not the supernatural.

Thus it was you who said "Evolutionist" more or less implies a "belief" in evolution. Since you didn't qualify people it refers to all people, does it not? The rest of your argument indicates that you were either assuming that belief referred to faith or you were using it as it is defined in that sense. Since it was you who argued

an implication that relegates it to some kind of faith

It is clear that you used it to mean faith. If you assert that this was not the case then your statement is misleading.

I was unaware we were discussing you.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant to say

When I posted this thread I used the term "believe" as in one sense defined in the dictionary, i.e. to accept as true, genuine, or real.

Sorry if I confused you.

I was unaware that there was a way it was meant to be used by "evolutionists".

Really? I find that surprising.

Can you cite something besides the dictionary to back this statement up?

I already did in my first post, i.e. What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr. I've also read several texts on evolution which use this term and there is no variation among them. You can go to the library and verify this if you so desire.

Are you implying that different experts on evolution use the term in different ways? That some of them use it to refer to faith in their science? If so then on what basis are you making this implication?

Can you cite something besides the dictionary to demonstrate otherwise? Do you have a reason to believe that different evolutionists use the term in different ways? Please provide one example where they use it to mean what you believe it means if its different than how I've defined it.

If one chooses not to use a dictionary then one must necessarily obtain the meaning from the context in which its used by a sampling of various authors who experts in the field. If one is to assert that all evolutionists use it this way then one has to provide a representative sampling of uses from various sources.

I think *you* are the one generalizing now.

You make it seem as if there's something wrong with doing that. There isn't. E.g. if someone were to say that mathematicians define an indefinite integral in a particular way (and produce a definition) then there'd be nothing wrong in doing so. The only objection that can be made in this case is whether such a definition is unique or. In this case I implied that all evolutionists use the term in the same way. That is true. One merely has to look.

Merriam-Webster is not a scientific publication.

And I wasn't born in March. So what? You're objection implies that the Merriam-Webster defines it in a way contrary to how a scientific publication would. Merriam-Webster might not be as precise as scientific publication but there's no reason to assume that the definition given by Merriam-Webster is contrary to them. If someone wanted to know how physicists use the term relativist how do you propose they find out? A scientific dictionary wouldn't have it nor would a relativity text. However a book on relativity might have it. So would a dictionary. Its a valid assumption that all physicists mean the same thing when they use that term and a dictionry is the best place to look it up.

Phi_for_all - You've made an assertion of how evolution experts use the term evolutionist. What you haven't yet done is to back this assertion up with facts. Would you care to do?

Believing something is true, in a scientific sense, is different from studying something thoroughly, examining the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is most probably true.

You’re starting to get off track. I understand your desire to discuss the meaning of the meaning of the term true as it pertains to this subject, especially since I wrote

I myself used the term "believe" as in one sense defined in the dictionary, i.e. to accept as true, genuine, or real.

However that is not the subject of this thread and I’m personally not interested in discussing it here. It is of very little relevance in this thread. since you're only concerned with the terms used in two particular definitions, each of which I provided.

Believing something is true, in a scientific sense, is different from studying something thoroughly, examining the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is most probably true.

That statement is very unclear, if not meaningless.

And if some scientists take offense at the implied "belief" aspect of the term "evolutionist", it is probably because it seems to relegate their studies to the same level as blind faith. You asked for some deeper psychological meaning behind this irritation and if you aren't willing to see that it might be insulting to someone who has spent their life in pursuit of knowledge, then I don't think you're really trying.

This is clearly a misrepresentation of my position and as such its a straw argument. If you truly believe otherwise then you don't understand my position. You're also assuming certain assumptions as fact and there is no valid reason for doing so. I.e. you claim that a legitimate evolution scientist (i.e. an evolutionist) interprets the term evolutionist to imply a belief system. You have not presented anything to substantiate such a fact. You are also arguing that there are actual evolution scientists who are insulted by the use of this term. You have also not presented anything to substantiate this as a fact either. Its an empty arguement to present certain unsubstantiated things as fact and then argue on that basis. To put this in scientific lingo - Your postulates have no basis in fact.

As you know, employing a straw arguement violates forum posting policy.

You need to sit down and read the actual research, instead of quickly jumping to random conclusions.

That is an enormous amount of work. Not only does one have to read the particular references you posted but also search out and read arguements from the opposition, i.e. those who argue against his conclusions. Did you do this?

what actually is a time, is a confusing question. i have got a real funny answer for it. can we explain time as distance between two point relative to observer with velocity c in the universe?? as i am a amature, this is a vague idea to think of(no scientific ideas or thoeries to support my idea). what actually is a time??

The more basic a quantity is the harder it is to describe. The Ducth physicist H.K Kramers once said (From Physical Sciences and Human Values (a symposian) , Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1947)

My own pet notion is that in the world of thought generally, and in physical science particularly, the most fruitful concepts are those to which it is impossible to attach a well-defined meaning.

That applies very cogently to the concept of time (as well as energy)

Here is a good working definition of time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Frankly I dismiss anyone who claims to understand women or know what they want.

That said, I'll state my naive impressions: Woman are first attracted by physical appearance and only then to personality. Thus if a woman starts dating a man she is physically attracted to and the man turns out to be a jerk then they'll think Gee. I wish I was dating a nice guy. What they're really mean is that I wish I was dating an attractive man who is also a nice guy. As a general rule woman don't want whimpy/geeky men. Whimpy/geeky and nice are not the same thing.

A similar thing holds for us men of course. We are first attrracted by physical appearences too and then to personality. Thus if we start dating a hot babe who turns out to be a be b*tch*s then we'll think Gee. I wish I was dating nice girl. What we are really thinking is I wish I was dating a hot babe who is also a nice girl. We too aren't all that interested in geeky women.

There are exceptions to every rule of course and I know of examples from my own life. Any generality has many exceptions. E.g. women claim to want to date intelligent men. But many women can't deal with intelligent men because they will in turn feel stupid being around them.

"Evolutionist" more or less implies a "belief" in evolution.

You are arguing with a misunderstanding of how the term belief is used by the all people who say "an evolutionist is a person who believes in evolution". I myself used the term "believe" as in one sense defined in the dictionary, i.e. to accept as true, genuine, or real. So its better to ask what they mean by the term before yelling at them.

However you're not using the term belief in the way its meant when an evolutionist uses it. When an evolutionist uses the term "belief" when in this sense it means to accept as true, genuine, or real. This is precisely how Merriam-Webster define one use of it at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Read what you wrote, iNow. It sure sounds like a belief, only stated in a rather ungainly manner.

I believe that iNow, like Phi_for_all, is confusing the various meanings of the term believe/belief. Recall the definition of the term believe. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe

1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>

2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>

3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>

transitive verb

1 a: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>

2: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon>

When I created this thread I used the term believe in the sense to accept as true. iNow and Phi_for_all seemed to think I used it to mean a variant of to have a firm religious faith (e.g. firm belief in something for which there is no proof). That is not the case.

There are chemists, physicists, biologists, geologists, linguists, etc., all of whom are scientists. The "ist" suffix here means someone who practices in or studies some specialized professional field. The suffix can also mean someone who espouses a position. Environmentalists do not "believe" in the environment, as if it is a god to be worshipped. They espouse a view of protecting the environment. So what is wrong with the word 'evolutionist' per se? Certainly it is better than the ungainly "person who accepts the truth of evolution by natural selection".

iNow has some strange ideas on labels. He askes Am I a "gravitationalist" since I accept gravity? Some fields of study and their subfields do have "ist" or the like applied to them. One well known example is the term relativist or quantum theorist.

I'm a physicist who enjoys relativity. I wouldn't get angry at someone for calling me a relativist. It someone called me a quantumist I might chuckle, but I certainly wouldn't get angry.

If some evolution-layman (evolution experts don't see to have this problem) percieve the use of the term evolutionist as being used to describe someone who accepts evolution on faith only then I can understand the anger. That seems to be iNow and Phi_for all's objection. That would seem to explain the psychological reason behind all this.

I don't understand the objection to the use of the term label. All it means in this context is the following

Label - a descriptive or identifying word

Its much easier to use the single word evolutionist rather than the sentance person who adheres to the theory of evolution. Its also much easier to use the single word physicist in place of person who studies the principles and laws of physics or some such thing.

Notice that the term evolutionist refers to more than those who study evbolution but also to those who accept it. The later include those who have faith in scientists. This is in distinction to a physicist which refers only to those people who, simply put, study physics. If one merely accepts that the laws of physics are true then that doesn't make them a physicist.

I decided to leave an atheist forum because the people there were over sensitive to the use of the term evolutionist. It appears that the offense to the term arose because creationists use the term to refer to people who believe in evolution. Atheist laymen love to to argue with creationists about evolution and the creationists refer to them as "evolutionist" of course. I guess these layman see it as a derogatory term.

I know from searching this forum that people here don't have this problem with the term so I'm asking here. People at the other forum can be quite irritating about it though, to the point of harassment and even insulting. For some odd reason, which I am unable to fathom, the even claim its not a word. What I don't understand is the psychological basis for this. Can someone, perhaps somone well versed in psychology, shed some light on why some people get so pissed off by such a universally used term like "evolutionist"?

Note: An example of a book on evolution which uses the term is What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr, a renouned scholar on evolution. Another example is found here - http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=4873

Thank you

What happens when photons interfere?