Terminology - "Evolutionist"

[Pete]

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

[Phi for All]

"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.

[iNow]

Evolutionist carries negative connotations, as if it's a religion. The ONLY people who use it are creationists. While I accept evolution, I am not an "evolutionist." I am a person who accepts the truth of evolution by natural selection. It's not a "universally used term." It's a term used by creationists, and if you use it, then you'll be lumped into that group.

 

Am I a "gravitationalist" since I accept gravity?

Am I an "a-astrologist" because I think astrology is bunk?

Am I an "a-numerologist" because I think numerology is crap?

 

No... It's a label that has no relevance accept for lumping your opposition into a group which you can more easily denigrate.

 

Much like the term "atheist." Sam Harris suggests that the use of the term itself presents a sort of "ceiling" to the potential success of the movement. He uses examples like race and the equal rights movement.

 

It didn't take a group of people saying, "Hey, we're non-racists" to change the sentiment in the world. What it really took was the broad acceptance of the fact that racism is wrong. Same for Thor and Zeus. They didn't die out because a large group of people banded together to say, "We're A-Thorians" or "We're A-Zeusists..." All it took was people realizing how silly and unecessary these mythological beliefs were, how unfounded they are in reality, and how the control they had over the minds of the populace needed to be severed.

 

Same with religion and belief in god today. It's not a group of people with a common label who are going to break us from this proverbial spell. It's the realization that these things are counter to rational thought and common sense.

 

I really do find it a powerful point. The label "atheist" just pigeon holes a huge group who find the evidence available for belief in god insufficient, so if someone comes up to you and says, "I'm a Christian, what are you?" ... you should try to avoid saying, "I'm an atheist," since even though it's easy and close to the truth, the other person will likely think something like, "Oh, I know his type... he just hasn't found god yet..." and the conversation just stops right there.

 

What we need is for such conversations to continue, and for the valid criticisms and challenges we have of the religious/god position to be addressed, not dismissed.

 

 

If you have time, the talk where he articulated this is pretty great (he even goes on to talk about spirituality, and challenges the "atheist" aversion to human spiritual experience). You should check it out if you have a little while to sit and watch.

 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2089733934372500371&hl=en

[D H]

I am not an "evolutionist." I am a person who accepts the truth of evolution by natural selection.

 

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

 

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".

 

No... It's a label that has no relevance accept for lumping your opposition into a group which you can more easily denigrate.

So what, its a label. People use labels. You use labels yourself, iNow:

 

But, I'm an environmentalist

 

My suggestion: Usurp the label "evolutionist".

 

 

I am an evolutionist. That does not mean I believe in evolution. It means I understand the logic and reasoning behind it and do not make up silly excuses to reject the truly immense amount of evidence that supports it. It means I use my mind. That is the opposite of belief.

[iNow]

I am an evolutionist. That does not mean I believe in evolution. It means I understand the logic and reasoning behind it and do not make up silly excuses to reject the truly immense amount of evidence that supports it. It means I use my mind. That is the opposite of belief.

 

You may have missed my larger point. It's easier to argue against a label than against a position or body of evidence.

 

Do you have a label for your acceptance of relativity? Do you have a label for your acceptance of gravity? Do you have a label for your lack of racism? Do you have a label for your acceptance that we are homosapiens? Do you have a label for your... ad infinitum.

 

You did, however, grasp the point about belief, and I appreciate that. We don't "believe" in evolution, we accept it and the reasoning behind it, and do not need to make up silly excuses to reject it. We don't need a label for any of that, though, and that was my point.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Once you've spent enough of your time in online forums like this battling against creationists, you learn to choose your words carefully, and to recognize that sometimes labels matter.

 

Maybe we could call ourselves "rationalists." It's hard to be against that.

[D H]

Do you have a label for your acceptance of relativity? Do you have a label for your acceptance of gravity? Do you have a label for your lack of racism? Do you have a label for your acceptance that we are homosapiens? Do you have a label for your... ad infinitum.

You are creating a straw man, iNow. You should know better. Gravity is not a point of contention. There is no floaters versus gravitationalists argument.

 

People use labels. You use labels. You use labels to describe those you don't like (creationists) and those you agree with (environmentalist). You just don't like it when people apply a label to you. In some cases you just need to get over it. This is one of them.

 

If a label isn't disparaging per se but is used to imply disparagement, one of the best ways to combat the label is to usurp it. Ernst Mayr has done exactly that. "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist".

 

We don't need a label for any of that, though, and that was my point.

Sure we do. We take a side in a debate. If you don't want a label attached to you don't take part in the debate. A person, not evolution, types out out a response to a creationist's fallacious post. Usurp the label.

[Mr Skeptic]

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"?

 

Some people abuse the label, by using it to imply that because an evolutionist believes in evolution, like a creationist believes in Creation. I'd even agree that most people accept evolution by faith, like they accept electromagnetism by faith. However, those who took the time to study biology and have seen for themselves evolution's predictions borne out, may take offense at the implication that they "believe" in evolution. Likewise, people who spend time arguing with creationists and have had the label used against them as a debate tactic, also do not like the label for obvious reasons.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Am I a "gravitationalist" since I accept gravity?

Am I an "a-astrologist" because I think astrology is bunk?

Am I an "a-numerologist" because I think numerology is crap?

Do you have a label for your acceptance of relativity? Do you have a label for your acceptance of gravity? Do you have a label for your lack of racism? Do you have a label for your acceptance that we are homosapiens? Do you have a label for your... ad infinitum.

 

Sure, but most people would look at you funny if you used special labels for those. The rest of us would just label you "normal" for all 6 of those examples, and countless of the others in "ad infinitum". Labels which place you in the vast majority are almost useless, but labels that place you in a minority, or in one of several "factions" are more useful. For example the label "iNow" is useful because it places you in an extremely small minority. The label "human" is useful because it places you among one of several "factions" of living things.

[D H]

Likewise, people who spend time arguing with creationists and have had the label used against them as a debate tactic, also do not like the label for obvious reasons.

Debating diehard creationists is the ultimate exercise in futility. Having unshakable beliefs, there is no way to win the debate. Having zero factual basis for their beliefs, they resort to name-calling ("evolutionist") and logical fallacies. The name-calling is easy to address: Usurp their label.

 

The reason to debate creationists is not to win them over (can't be done). It is to keep their poison from spreading and to win over those who are watching the debate. Never get riled by their name-calling, they're torturous abuse of logical, their outright lies. They win if you do. They win not only in their own eyes but also in the eyes of the religious people might otherwise be won over to the side of reason. If you usurp the labels they apply to you, you will have taken one of their weapons of illogic away from them.

[Mr Skeptic]

Debating diehard creationists is the ultimate exercise in futility. Having unshakable beliefs, there is no way to win the debate. Having zero factual basis for their beliefs, they resort to name-calling ("evolutionist") and logical fallacies. The name-calling is easy to address: Usurp their label.

 

The reason to debate creationists is not to win them over (can't be done). It is to keep their poison from spreading and to win over those who are watching the debate. Never get riled by their name-calling, they're torturous abuse of logical, their outright lies. They win if you do. They win not only in their own eyes but also in the eyes of the religious people might otherwise be won over to the side of reason. If you usurp the labels they apply to you, you will have taken one of their weapons of illogic away from them.

 

I have to disagree with you on most of this. Nearly all creationists honestly believe that they are right, so "lie" is the wrong label -- try "mistaken" or "deluded". In attacking their integrity, you not only alienate yourself, but also demonstrate your own ignorance. Unless they personally have something to gain from promoting creationism regardless of its truth, you should assume good faith.

 

Again, most of them are very rational, and it is precisely their rationality that demands that their beliefs and interpretation of known evidence match. You would do exactly the same in their shoes, at least for quite a while. This is how human psychology and indeed science works -- when you see a contradiction you discard one of the two contradicting things. The one you discard is almost always the one that requires less damage to your base of knowledge. If you saw an experiment contradicting one of the laws of physics as we know them, you would initially consider it experimental error. It would take massive amounts of contradictory evidence before anyone would discard a law of physics, because discarding it would mean rethinking so much of physics. Because a large portion of a religious person's life is based on their religion, discarding a religious belief would require massive amounts of contradictory data, since discarding it would require rethinking most of their life. In the interim they would consider the contradicting data to be flawed -- a mistaken interpretation, or outright lie by people with an agenda, or some other reason. It would be irrational to discard valuable data unless it is necessary to do so. I doubt our species would have gotten anywhere if it weren't for this sort of data management, even if it is sometimes flawed.

 

As a recent convert from creationism to evolutionism, I'd also have to say that it is indeed possible to convert. It may have taken me two decades to find the truth, but eventually I did. From when as a very young child I first read about evolution in an encyclopedia, til when I finally found the last evidence I needed -- right on this forum, incidentally -- I have been seeking to resolve the argument to my satisfaction (of course most of that wasn't spent searching, but I did put many hours into it). What finally convinced me was retrovirus DNA embedded in our evolutionary lineage, where it had absolutely no reason belonging by special creation. It may frustrate you to no end, but unless you can show someone indisputable evidence to the contrary, they will not change a belief that they have built their life on, nor is it rational to expect that they would. Furthermore, in calling them liars and irrational (a mistaken interpretation of their actions (again, for the vast majority of them)), you justify when they dismiss you as being mistaken or even lying.

 

The reason to debate creationists is not to win them over (can't be done). It is to keep their poison from spreading and to win over those who are watching the debate.

As to that, I'd agree that the biggest effect of the debate will be on the onlookers, not on the debaters. My suggestion: do not try to defend evolution as a good theory -- you can't, since there will always be holes, and you will never win an argument by being on the defensive forever. Defend evolution as you would defend any other theory: as the best explanation we have. After all, one cannot reject the best theory we have until there is a better theory. This means you have only to show that evolution is a better theory than intelligent design/creationsim (rather than an arbitrary standard of perfection), and that they need to defend their theory as well as attack evolution.

[D H]

I have to disagree with you on most of this. Nearly all creationists honestly believe that they are right, so "lie" is the wrong label -- try "mistaken" or "deluded".

I agree that most -- almost all -- creationists are honestly deluded people who are merely spouting lies that they have read elsewhere rather than being utterly dishonest and despicable liars. I'll agree that that honest majority deserves to be treated from a basis of good faith. Innocent until proven guilty and all that ...

 

The dishonest liars (e.g., Kent Hovind, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, ...) on the other hand intentionally deceive. These lies can be extremely profitable. 400 million dollars is not chump change.

[Pete]

"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.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Pmb
Consecutive post/s merged.

[iNow]

Debating diehard creationists is the ultimate exercise in futility.

 

<...>

 

The reason to debate creationists is not to win them over (can't be done).

In addition to Mr Skeptics personal story, I thought it worth giving some additional data to refute this point (I do note, however that you rightly softened your position on this as the thread continued):

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

 

 

 

Its much easier to use the single word evolutionist rather than the sentance person who adheres to the theory of evolution.

No, it's much easier to say that these people are normal, and not batshit crazy paste eaters who use iron age fairy tales as their reason for ignoring accepted truths and valid science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

iNow has some strange ideas on labels.

I know exactly how you're using the term, it just opens up a whole new set of arguments for the opposing side, and I've learned to shut them down up front. Saying you "believe" in something allows them to equivocate your acceptance of the science with their "belief" that Jesus was born of a virgin or that he was ressurrected. You then get into these stupid battles where they eqivocate their "faith" in the absence of evidence with your "faith" that the double-slit experiment shows photons to be both wave and particle (or the countless other evidence-based positions).

 

By rejecting the use of the word "belief" in these exchanges, it shuts to the door to future equivocation. That's the piece to remember.

 

 

Do you "believe in" gravity, or do you "accept" it? Do you "believe in" germ theory, or do you "accept" it? Trust me, words matter. If I say I "believe" in evolution, they think it's the same thing, and they think it puts their indoctrinated worldview on the same footing as the science. I know what you mean when you say believe... Phi knows what you mean, but the opposition equates the two and does not (often) make this distinction.

 

I'm not being silly. I've got scars from these battles, and I intend not to repeat previous mistakes when I go into battle again. The warrior doesn't return from the battle field unchanged, and I have been tempered against the use of this silly word as a result of opposing so many silly people.

Edited January 20, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive post/s merged.

[ydoaPs]

The terms "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist" are typically frowned upon as they usually refer to the non-existent followers of Cdesign Proponentsist strawmen.

[Phi for All]

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".

Incorrect. I made no generalization which involved "the all people". 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. I went further to suggest that there is no deeper psychological reason, which was my interpretation of your OP and why you placed it in this section.

 

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

I was unaware we were discussing you. I thought this was about "some people" getting pissed off at the term. You seemed OK with it, but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

So its better to ask what they mean by the term before yelling at them.

I rarely yell at creationists, or people who use the term "evolutionist". Sympathy is my evolved response these days.

 

However you're not using the term belief in the way its meant when an evolutionist uses it.

I was unaware that there was a way it was meant to be used by "evolutionists". Can you cite something besides the dictionary to back this statement up?

 

When an evolutionist uses the term "belief" when in this sense it means to accept as true, genuine, or real.

I think *you* are the one generalizing now.

 

This is precisely how Merriam-Webster define one use of it at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Merriam-Webster is not a scientific publication.

 

I think there is some miscommunication going on here. 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. 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.

[Mr Skeptic]

The terms "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist" are typically frowned upon as they usually refer to the non-existent followers of Cdesign Proponentsist strawmen.

 

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.

[Pete]

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.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Pmb

[iNow]

Wow, that was a long, obfuscating and unecessary post... Personal interpretations aside, though:

 

 

Phi_for_all - You've made a lot of comments regarding the meaning of evolutionist and how evolutionists use the term.

 

No, he hasn't. None of Phi's comments regarded how "evolutionists" use the term "evolutionist." It's not hard for readers to quickly verify this for themselves, as he's thus far only made two posts to this thread.

[Pete]

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.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Pmb

[The Bear's Key]

Debating diehard creationists is the ultimate exercise in futility. Having unshakable beliefs...

More like unshakable fears of questioning God's word.

 

(or the preacher's "interpretation" of it)

 

The name-calling is easy to address: Usurp their label.

 

The reason to debate creationists is not to win them over (can't be done). It is to keep their poison from spreading and to win over those who are watching the debate. Never get riled by their name-calling, they're torturous abuse of logical, their outright lies. They win if you do. They win not only in their own eyes but also in the eyes of the religious people might otherwise be won over to the side of reason. If you usurp the labels they apply to you, you will have taken one of their weapons of illogic away from them.

Not always. They're pretty crafty when labeling. It'd be a mistake to usurp names like "bleeding heart" for aiding the poor, or "elitist" for knowing your facts and being well-studied, or "terrorist sympatizer/appeaser" for not wanting to stoop to their level.

[D H]

Some terms cannot be usurped. Darwinist, for example. There are a lot of things wrong with that term. It implies an unthinking and static notion of science (evolution theory has changed a lot since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species 150 years ago) and it implies that we worship Darwin as if he were a god. OTOH, there is nothing wrong per se with "evolutionist". Think of it as a portmanteau of "evolutionary biologist". As pmb noted, several biologists do use the word evolutionist to describe themselves.

[Phi for All]

Actually no, it is not incorrect .

 

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?

I find that argument quite ludicrous. If I said I met nice people yesterday, does it imply I met *all* the nice people there are?

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

"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[/b'] causes simple indignation, no real psychological explanation beyond that needed. Science is interested in the natural, not the supernatural.

 

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 very clearly tied the concept of belief with the concept of faith and I don't see why you're obfuscating about it. It is that tie which often causes frustration in those who have studied a thing and understand it to be most probably true rather than simply taking the word of another without evidence and assume it must be true.

 

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.

Accepting that something is true, belief or faith, is different from studying something, weighing evidence, thoroughly researching the methodology used and then concluding that it is most probably true. Can you see that?

 

Really? I find that surprising.

You find it surprising that I don't think you have the authority to dictate how the word belief is used by all "evolutionists"? I find *that* surprising.

 

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.

I'll accept that evolutionists like yourself and Ernst Mayr have decided to use the term in this way. I am a proponent of evolution and I choose not to. To me, there is a decided difference, so please don't make any more decisions for me.

 

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.

Let's be clear here. The term we're discussing is "belief". Would you care to have me add a poll to this thread? Perhaps this would show that there may be some disagreement.

 

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.

Generalizations are often fallacious, just like the strawman example you use regarding indefinite integrals.

 

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.

Again, I offer a poll, in either this thread or another, to determine if the members here define their belief in evolution in a different way than creationists define their belief in creationism.

 

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?

This is incorrect. The assertion I made was regarding the psychological basis for the frustrations sometimes felt by scientists when they are labeled "evolutionists". Please don't shift the goalposts.

[Pete]

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.

[insane_alien]

are you actually reading phi's posts? are you actually reading your own?

[iNow]

Evolutionist carries negative connotations, as if it's a religion. The ONLY people who use it are creationists.

 

Turns out that I over-stated this, and it's not true that the "ONLY people" who use the term evolutionist are creationists. While PMB has a tone and a nastiness for seemingly odd reasons, he was right when he stated that Richard Dawkins used the term in his book. I looked yesterday.

 

It turns out, however, that Richard Dawkins took A LOT OF HEAT for doing this, as people who study biology don't all accept the term and many DO find it offensive and problematic. So, he DID use the term in his book TGD, and MANY people were upset by this, which sort of flies in the face of PMBs core argument. As I suppose is obvious by now, I happen to fall into that camp that sees use of the term as unuseful and problematic, but I was wrong to suggest that the ONLY people who use it are creationists. I was speaking from personal experience only.

 

With all of that said, my points stand. The term is something I personally find distasteful, and I've given rational reasons in support of that position. It's also distasteful here reading PMBs need to argue so venomously with people who are simply offering their personal perspectives on the use of a word.

[Mokele]

Personally, I know a lot of evolutionary biologists, and I don't know any who use the term "evolutionist". Regardless of validity, definitions or anything else, the term has been poisoned by the creationists, and nobody uses it.

 

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. The term exists, 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.