MSNBC uses the term "evolutionist"

....to describe Richard Dawkins. Last I checked, he is a Ethologist and evolutionary biologist, not some random "evolutionist". He has a Ph.D for fucks sake.Has the creotard movement really spread this far? Here is the article: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com.It's just an interview with Dawkins, talking about his new book. But, the usage of the term "evolutionist" in the headline and throughout just smacks of slander and bias. Just take a look at some of the questions they ask him. Shame on you MSNBC, shame on you. This is why I opt for NPR.

They forgot to mention that he's a heliocentrist and gravitationist...

As I have seen it applied during the past nearly-30 years, "evolutionist" means anyone who accepts evolution. Period.It also means "atheist", "anti-God", etc. Even though most people who accept evolution (and are therefore de facto "evolutionists") are believing and practicing Christians.Therefore, by creationist logic, many Christians are actually atheists.Please also note that, in about 25 years on-line, one of the hardest things to obtain, besides an actual reference from Calypsis4, was an actual working definition of "evolutionist" from a creationist.

What label would you choose to use for someone who is in opposition to creationism (largely better described as anti-evolutionism)?Also, the admin type looking over my shoulder doesn't like your inflammatory use of language.Moose

So they use the term coined by creationists. Used almost solely by creationists. Are they a creationist news source? Aren't they supposed to be "unbias"? He is a professional. At worst call him an Evolutionary Biologist, because that what he is. I don't see how you (unless you are a creationist) don't take issue with this. huh? please explain. If this forum is PG-13, I will gladly leave for good. I do well to keep my mouth civil in regards to most posters here and I am not directing this post at anyone here....unless you also represent MSNBC.

It is only a term i have seen used by creationists/IDists.Are you saying "evolutionist" and Evolutionary Biologist" are interchangable? It's the connotation of the former is all I am expressing. The implication.

I would say that "evolutionary biologist" is a subset of "evolutionist". As such, it would have been better descriptive to call Dawkins an "evolutionary biologist".But what about those who are in opposition to creationism, that are not biologists?I'm a geologist of sorts. Besides being in opposition to anti-(biological) evolutionism, I'm also in opposition to "bad (anti) geological evolutionism". But I'm not an evolutionary geologist, just a geologist. But in the larger opposition to anti-evolutionism movement, I'm an evolutionist.Evolution vs. creationism.Evolutionist vs. creationist.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Change ID.

from WikiAnd that is just how I, personally, take it. I see only creationists flouting the term. More and more people have seemingly begun to just accept it in light of the percieved Evo/Creo debate. The only place where the term even makes sense is IN the "debate".Meldinoor hit the nail on the head as far as i'm concerned. Are you, too, a gravitationist?

Gould used the word himself in his "Fact and Theory" essay:

quote:

---

Creationism Is Not Science

​

The basic attack of the creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their complaints against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is therefore meaningless and self-contradictory, a superb example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

---

The word appears three more times, I believe, in the essay (and it isn't all that long of a piece).While that is not the most current of works, it DOES show that non-creationists HAVE used the term, in this case in clear self description.

No, they are not interchangeable. I was saying that creationists invented the term "evolutionist" and overloaded with all those other negative connotations of atheism and hostility towards religion and "God". Then in debate when their opponent unwittingly accepts being called "evolutionist", all those in the audience "who have ears to hear" (ie, those in the creationist camp who have been taught what "evolutionist" is supposed to mean) will immediately ascribed all those perjoratives to that opponent. Thus the creationist immediately wins a large advantage against his opponent without that opponent even knowing it. It's a buzzword, a well-poisoner, a semantic and propaganda trick."Evolutionist" seems to also tie in with another creationist buzzword, "evolutionism". They use it as a synonym for evolution, but to me it denotes something different, more a philosophy that purports to be based on evolution. Thus evolution would be the science, whereas "evolutionism" would be philosophical ideas or beliefs supposedly derived from the science. They are very different ideas, but by having invented their use of "evolutionism" and then conflating it with evolution, creationists bolster their claim that evolution is a religion; eg (Evolutionism - Wikipedia):

quote:

---

In the modern scientific community the term {"evolutionist"} is an anachronism and is considered redundant as all biologists accept evolution, and so it is not used. To say someone is a scientist implies evolutionary views. In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.

---

We don't normally need a term to describe someone who accepts evolution, so we don't really a very good alternative to the creationist buzzword.PS Bingo! (or "Bimbo!", if you had seen "Short Circuit")Similarly, there are far more people who believe in supernatural creation but not in YECism than there are YECists. Steven Schimmrich was very active in the debate in the 1990's, but after having received his PhD Physical Geology (if I recall correctly) has moved on to career and raising a family, AKA "getting a life". From his page, "What is a Creationist?", which is no longer on-line:

quote:

---

I am an evangelical Christian and a creationist. I am also a Ph.D. candidate in geology, believe that the earth is approximately
4,600,000,000 years old, and have taught evolution in historical geology courses. Does this sound contradictory to you?

​

. . .

​

Creationism, despite what some people think, is not a belief held exclusively by uneducated Protestant fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally.

​

. . .

​

Keeping all of the above in mind, I think it's time for Christians to reclaim the word creationists from the Biblical literalists. To be a creationist means to believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all life therein. This is the historic, orthodox Christian position and implies nothing about the age of the earth or the mechanisms (or lack thereof) of biological evolution. Let's speak of Biblical creation or young-earth creation when distinguishing the beliefs of those who accept a literal reading of Genesis.

---

So we also find that the word "creationist" is not being properly used, being changed from its more general meaning to a very specific one and in the process pidgeonholing a very large segment of the population into a very narrow camp to which they do not belong.So, lacking any better terminology that is widely accepted, we seem to be stuck with a couple terms that don't really say what we mean.Edited by dwise1, : PS

Well, the other alternative I've heard is "Darwinist" which, to me, is just beyond the pale. I'm not a fan of "evolutionist" but I've tired of fighting against it, just as I've tired of fighting against the word normalcy, it's just not worth it anymore. {sigh}

Hi, Hooah.I have to say, man, I don't see anything inflammatory in that article. In fact, it was a very friendly treatment of Dawkins.The only time this article really called him an "evolutionist" was in rewording a derogatory comment from Newsweek such that it painted Dawkins in a positive light.Obviously, the interviewer wanted to get at the sexy, controversial stuff, but he did it in a very polite manner, from what I read.Honestly, dude, I don't see any reason for anybody to be upset with this article.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Minnemooseus writes:

quote:

---

But what about those who are in opposition to creationism, that are not biologists?

---

The problem is one of category. The foundational basis for creationism is nowhere near that for evolution. Notice that even here, the term is "creationISM" with the "-ism" suffix on the end which indicates a devotion or adherence.Evolution doesn't have that suffix because it isn't a question of devotion for evolution is a science.Thus, "-ist" implies a person who has that devotion. But when it comes to science, that devotion doesn't exist. That's why we don't talk about "gravitationalists" who advocate for "gravitationalism." That simply isn't the way science works.So someone who advocates for evolution without actually being a biologist would be an "advocate for evolution."To come up with equivalent terms for those who push for creationism and those who push for evolution would be to indicate that there is an equivalence between creationism and evolution.And there simply isn't.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

The article is TITLED "The Angry Evolutionist". To me, that is the journalist using that term to describe Dawkins, which leads to my initial judgement.However, a second reading, with a different mindset, does yield a not-so-confrontational aspect. I do still take issue with the title, though.

This seems very unlikely. Christians only make up less than one sixth of the population - many of these in poorer parts of the world like rural Africa and Larin America with little decent education - just where you'd expect people to be believing in strict literalist creation stories. In much of the richer world like Europe and the US, being a practicing Christian would make you more likely than average to reject evolution.More on the topic, I think the term 'evolutionist' could have some value in describing people. Someone who knows little if anything about science, but who passionately argues against creationists because it fits in with their social and political identity would be an evolutionist, as they do possess a similar sort of zeal and devotion. Any dispute which becomes politically polarised has people arguing for both sides more out of a sense of community than any grasp of the debate's details.