The Word Evolutionists

You know what's really annoying? When two or three people start to dominate a forum and they get all off topic...never go back to the subject at hand...

Well i gave my opinion in my first post but...I believe that you are missing something, i think that evolutionist is merely a word that means someone who thinks evolution is the best explaination for the diversity of life upon this earth. Maybe creationists somehow misuse it to construe a religous type doctrine about it, however i do not believe that it is any different from biologist, scientist, physicist etc etc it is merely a description of that person.People start new words, language evolves, and i feel that evolutionist is perfectly reasonable addition to the english language. I think that maybe you have only read posts where creationists are attacking "evolutionists" they arent inventing a strawman, but merely applying a label that make things easier to understand, same as we apply the label creationist to them.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

Dude I just what some other people to post their ideas...this forum quickly got dominated by four people and I hate that...

Well so far no one seems to have had a problem with the word evolutionist, and if they dont have a problem there posting on this topic would serve little purpose as in the time that its been about no one has disagreed. Except of course yourself, you have been offered reasons for why i personally disagree, no one else really offered reasons (cept for maybe ned i think) and you didnt attempt to dispute them. I dont have a problem discussing the topic on hand, however there is very little discussion about it seeing as there is little dispute, theres only so many ways of saying "i agree".However i do know what you mean about topic drift being annoying, however its the way it tends to work, someone drops a reference in, which becomes something else, it seems like a large degree of time and effort to create a new topic, since the topic being discussed is changing rapidly, and so many topics would be needed. I spose people just discuss whatever the topic turns to at the time, although it is drift it at least keeps people talking, and not put off by having to start large numbers of new topics, all going thru proposed topics first.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

I object to the word evolutionist because it makes it sound as if I worship evolution or that it is philosophy I live by. It is not. It is a scientific theory that after much study I have accepted as adequately explaining the how if not the why of life on Earth. Creationists on the other hand see the Biblical account of creation as the basis for their religous beliefs and often build up their entire philosophy of life around it.And I didn't immediately want to dispute any one's ideas because I wanted to see if more than one idea came in.This message has been edited by MexicanHotChocolate, 06-20-2004 02:56 PM

OK, do you reject the words physicist and scientist on the same principle? I am assuming not. These are merely descriptive words. I feel that evolutionist is merely the logical progression of someone who accepts evolution. Some creationists admittedly argue that evolution is a religion, however i feel they have been refuted satisfactorily. This however only means that the word evolutionist is misrepresented, as many words and objects can be, and not that an evolutionist follows it as a religion.I disagree also with your definition of a creationist. I believe that creationist is a describing word of someone who believes that everything was created (by everything i refer to at least the very precursers such as energy and various laws etc, everything can be derived from those things). Not all creationists follow the bible, christians base their religion on the bible, some christians are creationists, some evolutionists. Creation is merely the act of a being creating everything, not the entire belief system etc, merely one of the possible beliefs. Evolution is merely the theory of biological diversity, however it by no means defines biology, it is once again merely a facet.I think that in general -ist after a word gives a definition that the individual being describes follows/believes/accepts the word before the ist.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

The majority of vocal American Creationists are Christians and use the word Evolutionist to demonize evolution as some sort of false religion. You just have to go to the Answers in Genesis website or the 'science' section of any Christian Bookstore to see this in the works of men like Ken Hamm.Most of the Christian Creationists I have met feel that their entire religion falls apart if the stories of Genesis are not literally true.Most evolutionary scientists I know don't believe biology falls apart if Darwin's theory is proved incorrect they would just try to find a better theory.

---

Our loyalties are to the species and the planet. We speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves but also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring.
--Carl Sagan, 1934-1996

Maybe they do misuse the word evolutionist, however they are still only describing someone who accepts evolution, no matter what they then assign to that person, they are still an evolutionist. I could say that all theists are arrogant pompus idiotic little prats, the word creationist refers to someone who believes in creation, the rest is merely my own concoction on what those people also are. Incidently i only believe that of some creationists, and some evolutionists, and any other ists about i suspect.There are a few christians here that accept evolution. What you must accept is that creationists are not necessarily christian. Those christians who are creationists would no doubt feel that they may lose their entire religion if it wasnt true, however obviously that is not necessary as we have people about that still have religion.I think the main reason for this is that to truly disprove creation in all senses one would have to disprove the ultimate creator, this would cause problems for many religions as a whole. I am sure that there could be some strange fictional circumstance that would disprove biology in one fell swoop, and so evolution would go with it (dont ask for an example it would have to be some strange nihilist concept i guess.There are many situations in which a group of people are assigned other qualities, however one must realise that these other qualities are still not the definition of the group.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

quote:

---

I think many creos would be "won over" if this whole "this means no God" thing would dissapear.

---

But the ToE or science or Biology doesn't say "this means no god".It's the religious people, often Biblical literalists, who say that.

I know this Schraff, you preach it to me weekly. But, to be honest, I have heard a few atheists suggesting it aswell. Afterall, they are atheist and Do actually think there is no God. Like Dawkins for example. You see, it may be "officially no comment" with science, which is correct, but I'm not so unperceptive that I cannot discern what people are implying when they state something.Though I will concede that literalists do preach this "mindset" as you said.

Yeah, Dawkins is kind of a prick. But his science is good.

Your comments are most acceptable. It's a shame you are leaving the forum shortly. You're one of my favourite posters.Also, I am sad that you lost your faith, maybe you can regain it? Whatever became of that prayer I bullied you into doing? If only Crashfrog was a gentleman unlike a vigorbull.Believe it or not though, I am not part of any church group or "social faith" person. Maybe Schrafinator should read your posts. It's the difference between a quiet river and a stampeed. Get back to the truth Unseul. You're wasted being under Schraff's command.

ROFLThat comment kinda makes up for my disgruntlements with that program.

It's become an annoyance for me to put up with peers (other people that want to become ministers that I happen to be in contact with) saying stupid things like 'oh, but you're an evolutionist so I guess that doesn't apply to you'.It may not bother an atheist or agnostic. Heck, a typical theistic evolutionist would have no trouble by it, but slap on a minister robe and everybody wants your ass on a platter for it.I'm supposed to be setting an example, so what would I want to exemplify for people? Someone who takes things on faith despite evidence? I could look up to that, but that's not who I am even though I admire the faith of those who can; a large part of me is convinced that they're right. However, I've always been the 'take it apart and see how it works' so I can't ignore things like that. With that in mind, I'm an 'evilutionist' despite my future profession.That really gets me goin' sometimes. A small number of people say they would never 'lower themselves' to listening to a preacher that is a 'follower' of evolution and not God.Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of tolerant Creationists; much more than intolerant ones that rant about science on internet forums .
But that still doesn't change the fact that being called an evolutionist gets my temper going; and so you can count one offended 'evolutionist'.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

I think that I could agree with that, yes. Though I don't think it's easy to tell the difference.